Ten Reasons to Leave Iraq Now (1 Viewer)

[banco55]

They are a civilized bunch bunch aren't they?

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq’s history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.The word is “sahel,” and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.
It is a word unique to Iraq, my friend Razzaq explained over tea one afternoon on my final tour. Throughout Iraq’s history, he said, power has changed hands only through extreme violence, when a leader was vanquished absolutely, and his destruction was put on display for all to see.
Most famously it happened to a former prime minister, Nuri al-Said, who tried to flee after a military coup in 1958 by scurrying through eastern Baghdad dressed as a woman. He was shot dead. His body was disinterred and hacked apart, the bits dragged through the streets. In later years, Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party crushed their enemies with the same brand of brutality.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03wong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I don't see why it is necessary to continue to make excuses to stay in Iraq. The original problem was Saddam Hussein and WMD's which could have targeted America itself. Now there is no more Saddam, no WMD's... America and the world is safe.

They tried to do the right thing by staying and helping the Iraqi's but if they don't want any help it's time to stop giving it. It's time to leave. If at any point in the future Iraq becomes a threat to America then go back and bomb them and leave again. Peacekeeping will not work. Let them sort it out themselves.

 

[Rutaban]

May I remind you all that Iraq was a sovereign nation just like America, before America invaded. The objective was to rid Iraq of Sudam Hussein, and thus to "free" the Iraqi people of his dictatorial reign. However, can't a progressive and powerful nation like the USA do this without slaughtering millions of innocent civilians? Besides, America has already executed Hussein, violently at that. What are they still doing in Iraq? Trying to bring order? Iraq was a society based on social order before America invaded. Insurgents didn't even exist before the war. Many believe that the Americans are in Iraq simply for the oil. But America already has an abundance in resources and fast economic growth. Oil would be a great prize to win from the war, however America can survive without this miniscule benefit. And then there is an underlying question: is it against the muslims? Please understand that there have been many wars based on religion and ideological dispute. Yes, many muslims are entering America every year, let alone Australia. However, there is still a remaining resistance against the tide of Islam. It sounds extreme, I know, however, tell me this: where have all the latest conflicts been taking place? Think of the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the Gaza Strip, Lebenon. Do these names ring a bell? They all belong in the Middle East. Additionally, in history, and remember history repeats itself, Popes have told their exploited soldiers that for every Muslim head you lop, you'll be secured a bigger place in heaven. Considering fundamental politics is creeping back in to western nations and state and church is becoming indistinguishable, I can believe that this is a war against Muslims, especially considering Islam is the most widely spread and followed religion in the world.

Sounds farfetched I know, but please consider my opinions and arguments.

Thanks.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

May I remind you all that Iraq was a sovereign nation just like America, before America invaded. The objective was to rid Iraq of Sudam Hussein, and thus to "free" the Iraqi people of his dictatorial reign. However, can't a progressive and powerful nation like the USA do this without slaughtering millions of innocent civilians? Besides, America has already executed Hussein, violently at that. What are they still doing in Iraq? Trying to bring order? Iraq was a society based on social order before America invaded. Insurgents didn't even exist before the war. Many believe that the Americans are in Iraq simply for the oil. But America already has an abundance in resources and fast economic growth. Oil would be a great prize to win from the war, however America can survive without this miniscule benefit. And then there is an underlying question: is it against the muslims? Please understand that there have been many wars based on religion and ideological dispute. Yes, many muslims are entering America every year, let alone Australia. However, there is still a remaining resistance against the tide of Islam. It sounds extreme, I know, however, tell me this: where have all the latest conflicts been taking place? Think of the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the Gaza Strip, Lebenon. Do these names ring a bell? They all belong in the Middle East. Additionally, in history, and remember history repeats itself, Popes have told their exploited soldiers that for every Muslim head you lop, you'll be secured a bigger place in heaven. Considering fundamental politics is creeping back in to western nations and state and church is becoming indistinguishable, I can believe that this is a war against Muslims, especially considering Islam is the most widely spread and followed religion in the world.

Sounds farfetched I know, but please consider my opinions and arguments.

Thanks.

The war in Iraq presented the different groups with an opportunity to try and gain some power. That is why there are insurgents now and there weren't before.

This is not a war against muslims, but I have no doubt that there will be a war against muslims in the near future.

 

[banco55]

May I remind you all that Iraq was a sovereign nation just like America, before America invaded. The objective was to rid Iraq of Sudam Hussein, and thus to "free" the Iraqi people of his dictatorial reign. However, can't a progressive and powerful nation like the USA do this without slaughtering millions of innocent civilians? Besides, America has already executed Hussein, violently at that. What are they still doing in Iraq? Trying to bring order? Iraq was a society based on social order before America invaded. Insurgents didn't even exist before the war. Many believe that the Americans are in Iraq simply for the oil. But America already has an abundance in resources and fast economic growth. Oil would be a great prize to win from the war, however America can survive without this miniscule benefit. And then there is an underlying question: is it against the muslims? Please understand that there have been many wars based on religion and ideological dispute. Yes, many muslims are entering America every year, let alone Australia. However, there is still a remaining resistance against the tide of Islam. It sounds extreme, I know, however, tell me this: where have all the latest conflicts been taking place? Think of the Gulf War, Afghanistan, the Gaza Strip, Lebenon. Do these names ring a bell? They all belong in the Middle East. Additionally, in history, and remember history repeats itself, Popes have told their exploited soldiers that for every Muslim head you lop, you'll be secured a bigger place in heaven. Considering fundamental politics is creeping back in to western nations and state and church is becoming indistinguishable, I can believe that this is a war against Muslims, especially considering Islam is the most widely spread and followed religion in the world.

Sounds farfetched I know, but please consider my opinions and arguments.

Thanks.

Brilliant analysis. I'm sorry in which Western country is state and church becoming indistinguishable? The church has never been more marginalized in the west for more then a thousand years.

 

[EmperorHirohito]

War against Muslim LOL Only if these people realise America have everything it needs at its disposal to kill every living Muslim on this earth if it wanted to. To those people who believe America is waging war against Islam "Be afraid, be very afraid" :jaw:

 

[Born2baplacebo]

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

If google counts as michael moore's site, then yes.

 

[Rutaban]

The war in Iraq presented the different groups with an opportunity to try and gain some power. That is why there are insurgents now and there weren't before.

This is not a war against muslims, but I have no doubt that there will be a war against muslims in the near future.

That's and interesting theory, and something to consider. hmmm...

 

[Rutaban]

Brilliant analysis. I'm sorry in which Western country is state and church becoming indistinguishable? The church has never been more marginalized in the west for more then a thousand years.

Were you serious when you said "Brilliant Analysis"? Thanks, if you were. Additionally, your argument proves valid. So my apologies: state and church are not "becoming indistinguishable". Though you should consider that conservatives of the Republican Party are running America. Therefore, it is possible that their interests lie in the cessation of the growth of Islam via war. And don't you think that there is a foregrounded fear of the Muslims? It's like the days of the Cold War. The Americans drove a fear of communism into the people as an excuse to invade communist countries. See? History does repeat itself.

And finally, Churchill's quote that you included: do you really believe in it? that islam is a "retrograde force [that] exists in the world"?

 

[BritneySpears]

Were you serious when you said "Brilliant Analysis"? Thanks, if you were. Additionally, your argument proves valid. So my apologies: state and church are not "becoming indistinguishable". Though you should consider that conservatives of the Republican Party are running America. Therefore, it is possible that their interests lie in the cessation of the growth of Islam via war. And don't you think that there is a foregrounded fear of the Muslims? It's like the days of the Cold War. The Americans drove a fear of communism into the people as an excuse to invade communist countries. See? History does repeat itself.

And finally, Churchill's quote that you included: do you really believe in it? that islam is a "retrograde force [that] exists in the world"?

You are wrong right there. America did not invade communist countries, America interfered only as a result of communist invasion of their non communist counterpart, notably South Korea and South Vietnam invaded by Communist North Korea and Communist North Vietnam.

By the way, George Bush received a Hero's welcome in Albania, a predominantly Muslim population (70%) , so much to the horror of those who choose to believe America hates muslim and wants to kill them all. Albanian Muslims think otherwise

Bush makes landmark Albania visit





President George W Bush has become the first US leader to visit Albania, where he has enjoyed a hero's welcome. :rofl: The Balkan country is a staunch ally in America's "war on terror", and Mr Bush met Albanian soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6738055.stm

 

[banco55]

Were you serious when you said "Brilliant Analysis"? Thanks, if you were. Additionally, your argument proves valid. So my apologies: state and church are not "becoming indistinguishable". Though you should consider that conservatives of the Republican Party are running America. Therefore, it is possible that their interests lie in the cessation of the growth of Islam via war. And don't you think that there is a foregrounded fear of the Muslims? It's like the days of the Cold War. The Americans drove a fear of communism into the people as an excuse to invade communist countries. See? History does repeat itself.

And finally, Churchill's quote that you included: do you really believe in it? that islam is a "retrograde force [that] exists in the world"?

I doubt that anyone with any influence in washington has any grandiose ideas about stopping the growth of islam per se. I think they did have some grandiose ideas that democratization of the arab middle east would lead to a steep decline in muslim radicalism. Obviously they failed to recognize how much of a cess pool the arab middle east is and miscalculated. I have no doubt there's a certain amount of fear of muslim extremism in the US and with good reason.

Finally yes I agree with the Churchill quote. You'll notice the countries where Islam is strongest ie the middle east and north africa have the lowest levels of educational attainment, shit economies, dictatorships etc. I'm not saying Islam is the only reason but I think it's a big factor.

 

[onebytwo]

US should attack Iran base : Lieberman

US senator Joseph Lieberman said today his country should seriously consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's alleged involvement with Iraqi insurgents.
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said.
"And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
The US accuses Iran of fostering terrorism, and Tehran's nuclear ambitions have brought about international reproach.
Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 who now represents Connecticut as an independent, spoke of Iran's alleged role in the continued violence in Iraq.
"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said.
"Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them.
"If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman said.
"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."
US military officials in Iraq have alleged the Iranians are training Iraqi Shiite extremists, but have not publicly identified the base. Iran has denied the allegation.
However, some Shiites linked to the Mahdi Army have also said several thousand militants have undergone training in Iran and have returned to the Baghdad area and elsewhere to step up attacks against US and coalition forces.
On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's detention of at least four Americans was unwarranted but will not stop Washington from trying to engage Iran on other matters, including its disputed nuclear program and alleged support of insurgents in Iraq.
In an Associated Press interview, Rice also appeared to cast doubt on whether the US would take its tentative diplomatic outreach to Iran any further for now.
The US and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq met last month for the first public, substantive, high-level discussions the two countries have held in nearly three decades. Although limited to the topic of violence and instability in Iraq, the talks have been seen as a possible window to better relations.
Immediately after the meeting in Baghdad, Iran announced plans for another. But US ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.
US officials also said they wanted to see Iran follow up on US complaints that it is equipping and helping insurgents who attack American forces.
Lieberman spoke on the CBS program, Face the Nation.
AP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-should-strike-iran-lieberman/2007/06/11/1181414165962.html
the antichrist is here people....and he's a US senator!

 

[Born2baplacebo]

I don't see why it is necessary to continue to make excuses to stay in Iraq. The original problem was Saddam Hussein and WMD's which could have targeted America itself. Now there is no more Saddam, no WMD's... America and the world is safe.

They tried to do the right thing by staying and helping the Iraqi's but if they don't want any help it's time to stop giving it. It's time to leave. If at any point in the future Iraq becomes a threat to America then go back and bomb them and leave again. Peacekeeping will not work. Let them sort it out themselves.

<3

 

[bm86]

The Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism:

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

and the Bush administration was warned about the consequences of the Iraq war:

... the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.” ...

... It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials." ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18854414

About the cost of the Iraq war:

It costed almost a trillion dollars? (not sure of the exact figure)

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has suggested the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be $1 trillion in a conservative scenario and could top $2 trillion in a moderate one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_2003_Iraq_Conflict
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2006_Cost_of_War_in_Iraq_NBER.pdf

About the death toll:

War-related & criminal violence deaths (all Iraqis) Iraq Health Minister-From early 2004 to November 2006:
100,000-150,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773

Between $1 trillion to $2 trillion lost and 100,000 to 150,000 dead for a war that has increased terrorism...

Its also interesting to now see Republicans wanting to withdraw from Iraq, from Republican Ron Paul's website:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. ...

... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. ...

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy

 

[Dave2007]

The morality of the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant.

The costs of the invasion and WMD justification is irrelevant.

The fact is we are in there, and the current debate accepts the status quo doesnt work.

So essentially there are two options; gradual withdrawal (12-18 months step down) or a troop surge. Anyone who says leave Iraq "now" is a raving nutbag; the country would fall into complete despair, the sunnis and kurds would be absolutely destroyed, terror would sweep the country at unprecedented levels until a nice new tyrant (Backed by some other country) took power.

So which is a better option?

Here are the main arguments:

FOR WITHDRAWAL:

1.) Coalition inability to control Iraq: the nature of guerilla war, the huge human cost.

2.) The US presence in the middle east has radicalised insurgents and generally played into the hands of middle eastern anti-american propaganda

3.) American occupation just adds another level of violence to Iraq: e.g. the sectarian violence, with the new level of anti-occupation violence

4.) The occupation of Iraq is undermining the goals of the war on terror by becoming a cause celebre for terrorists and undermines US credibility

FOR TROOP SURGE:

1.) If we left now there would be a huge >150,000 troop vaccuum. The current Iraqi troops are totally inadequate to the task and hampered by sectarian views. They simply could not fight against international interests, warlords and sectarian violence: Iraq would be stuffed.

2.) Regional consequences of withdrawal: For example Iran would attempt to sponsor a Shia state taking over, the relations between Saudia Arabia and the Kurds etc...

3.) Political consequences: This new pluralistic democracy is plagued by challenges (e.g. it took 5 months to choose a prime minister), but it is the greatest political step forward Iraq has ever had and without strong protection it will crumble to another dictatorship.

4.) Implications for war on terror: It would embolden terrorists and potentially provide new bases for terrorists.

What do you think?

Now you've read my thoughts on both sides of the argument. Of course there are other points that can be made, such as a deadline for withdrawal would encourage Iraqis to get it together or how troop surges can provide regional support disproportionate to their numbers.

Personally I'm in favour of staying in Iraq and coming up with a long-term strategy (e.g. over 15 years) to disarm sectarian groups, promote democracy and stabilise the Iraqi economy.

 

[banco55]

It's time to forget the democracy pipe dream the arabs clearly aren't well suited for democracy and "Iraq" in particular isn't well suited for democracy. The US can't sustain the surge for very long in any case without breaking their military. They certainly can't sustain the surge for long enough for it to be anything but a hail mary pass. The question for the US is how much blood and treasure they are going to piss away in a lost cause.

Withdraw from Iraq and if they want to have a civil war over sectarian bullshit let them. Keep a US military presence in Kurdistan and in Kuwait. Meanwhile use airpower, money and covert action to try to limit the fallout as much as possible.

 

[201055]

The only way a democracy is ever gonna have a chance is when the Sunnis and Kurds realise they will never fully erradicate the other, and come to form a bi-parliamentary system and settle their differences, sort of what Ireland is attempting to achieve. (Although it'll be interesting to see if it'll last).

 

[bm86]

Does anyone really believe democracy in Iraq is still possible?

Withdrawal is the only option. The war is bankrupting the U.S. economy and increasing the threat of terrorist attacks.

McGovern-Polk proposal

Former U.S. Senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, director of the University of Chicago Center for Middle Eastern Studies, published a detailed proposal for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in their book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. (Simon & Schuster, 2006. ISBN 1-4165-3456-3) A sizable excerpt was published in the October 2006 edition of Harper's magazine. Although their deadline for withdrawal has passed, their plan may serve as a useful blueprint for future withdrawal plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

The longer American troops remain in Iraq, the more recruits will flood the ranks of those who oppose America not only in Iraq but elsewhere.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/10/0081225

 

[BritneySpears]

War is good for the economy, see how australia achieved unprecedented growth in economy and lowest level of unemployment in australian history. Thanks to Iraq war

 

[fernando]

Evil rises through politics. Screw the war.