What is the way forward in Iraq?

[RSS News]

President Obama is expected to announce his plan to withdraw most US troops from Iraq by August 2010. Is this right?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[SocialRealist]

Indeed it is right. For a period of time America was owning everything in Iraq due to the occupation. Now what seems to have come is the end of this occupation which is very good. I would enjoy seeing the day when the Iraqis have their own nation and are not being forced constantly into following what a super power does.

I can only hope that the future will be a good one for the Iraqis. They suffered through Saddams leadership, they suffered during the occupational periods and they now are looking to have their own independent nation yet again.

I cannot tell you what will happen in the future but what I can say is that this will likely take some of the pressure off of the Middle East. As we know likely the United States will still use their influence in Iraq as a way of economic and political capital but it will not be a full on occupation which is very good in my mind.

[ZeroNowhere]

The one that doesn't involve being a US conquest (regardless of whether they require troops there or not). Now, as for the troops, presumably something not involving being dumped in Afghanistan.

[ibn Bruce]

Iraq will either become a Shia state defined by links with Iran (becoming an extension of Iran's growing power) or it will become a Shia state defined by Iraqi Nationalism and the Sadrists. Either is the Iraqis to a certain extent defining their own destiny and telling the US to shove it.

[ComradeLands]

The decision to withdraw troops from Iraq is not due to Obama taking an anti-imperialist turn, rather to divert them to Afghanistan just as the British government had done previously when the withdrew from the southern city, Basra.

Whilst the more obvious fact that the war on terror will continue in Afghanistan signfies that this move is far from progressive, whilst at the same time the state in which the occupying forces left Iraq in is horrific.

High unemployment, sectarian divisions, all state owned industry privatised and a puppet government who will continue the United State's policies will sadly, without global solidarity with the Iraqi working class and the military defeat on the United States and British soldiers still there, be the way in which Iraq goes forward.

[Charles Xavier]

The US will attempt to convert the Iraq war to a war fought on behalf of the US by the domestic forces and PMCs.

[cyu]

What is the way forward in Iraq?

If the American military (and private contractor) presence in Iraq is there to protect Iraqi lives, then the first order of business should be to remove American immunity (both military and private contractor) from Iraqi law. The second would be to make the American military there subservient to the decisions of the Iraqi public (which means they have to make sure the elections are free and fair).

If a soldier or contractor kills / rapes an Iraqi, he should be handed over to Iraqi courts. If a soldier doesn't like this lack of immunity (or doesn't like being in Iraq for any reason), he should be allowed to return. None of this criminal prosecution for desertion / AWOL crap. Of course, I also don't support the death penalty - so if any Iraqi judge is sentencing a person to death (whether they are American, Iraqi, or even a confessed terrorist / Saddam himself), I would support attempts to organize both soldiers and civilians to rescue the person (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll just set him free afterwards, since everyone else still may have to be protected from the convict, if he's still dangerous).

[brigadista]

If the American military (and private contractor) presence in Iraq is there to protect Iraqi lives, then the first order of business should be to remove American immunity (both military and private contractor) from Iraqi law. The second would be to make the American military there subservient to the decisions of the Iraqi public (which means they have to make sure the elections are free and fair).

If a soldier or contractor kills / rapes an Iraqi, he should be handed over to Iraqi courts. If a soldier doesn't like this lack of immunity (or doesn't like being in Iraq for any reason), he should be allowed to return. None of this criminal prosecution for desertion / AWOL crap. Of course, I also don't support the death penalty - so if any Iraqi judge is sentencing a person to death (whether they are American, Iraqi, or even a confessed terrorist / Saddam himself), I would support attempts to organize both soldiers and civilians to rescue the person (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll just set him free afterwards, since everyone else still may have to be protected from the convict, if he's still dangerous).

they are not there to "protect iraqi lives" they are there to protect american interests, economically they have done this therefore their corporate etc foothold is completed..
what did you think this invasiosn was about?= not the Iraqi people that is for sure

[Crux]

http://www.ifcongress.com/English/

[piet11111]

i expect the USA to remove Karzai soon because their puppet has shown to have a will of his own and pleading for Russian involvement instead of american involvement.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090202/119942260.html

even if they manage to make Karzai to play by their rules the USA is going to struggle with afghanistan seeing how their main supply line has been severed with the destruction of the bridge in the Khyber pass.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/03/pakistan.bridge.explosion/

and that the airbase in Kyrgyzstan in Manas will have to be abandoned due to the Kyrgyz government refusal to renew the deal (incidently russia will write off a $ 180 million dollar debt provide $ 150 million in financial support and give a $2 billion discounted loan )
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090206/120016679.html

Russia also refuses NATO to use its territory and airspace for the transportation of goods to afghanistan.
this alone puts NATO in a very tough position so much so that they even have to consider asking Iran for help :lol:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84514&sectionid=351020403

so seeing how afghanistan is shaping up its going to be a bigger clusterfuck then iraq.
how long until they will again shift their focus on iraq ? my bet is within the year.
either way iraq and afghanistan are both lost causes that can not be saved because they permanently lost the "hearts and minds" of the local population by acting like an occupation force instead of a liberating force that they tried to pretend to be.

[brigadista]

i expect the USA to remove Karzai soon because their puppet has shown to have a will of his own and pleading for Russian involvement instead of american involvement.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090202/119942260.html

even if they manage to make Karzai to play by their rules the USA is going to struggle with afghanistan seeing how their main supply line has been severed with the destruction of the bridge in the Khyber pass.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/03/pakistan.bridge.explosion/

and that the airbase in Kyrgyzstan in Manas will have to be abandoned due to the Kyrgyz government refusal to renew the deal (incidently russia will write off a $ 180 million dollar debt provide $ 150 million in financial support and give a $2 billion discounted loan )
http://en.rian.ru/world/20090206/120016679.html

Russia also refuses NATO to use its territory and airspace for the transportation of goods to afghanistan.
this alone puts NATO in a very tough position so much so that they even have to consider asking Iran for help :lol:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=84514&sectionid=351020403

so seeing how afghanistan is shaping up its going to be a bigger clusterfuck then iraq.
how long until they will again shift their focus on iraq ? my bet is within the year.
either way iraq and afghanistan are both lost causes that can not be saved because they permanently lost the "hearts and minds" of the local population by acting like an occupation force instead of a liberating force that they tried to pretend to be.

wasn't Karzai formerly a UNICOL executive?

[ibn Bruce]

If a soldier or contractor kills / rapes an Iraqi, he should be handed over to Iraqi courts. If a soldier doesn't like this lack of immunity (or doesn't like being in Iraq for any reason), he should be allowed to return. None of this criminal prosecution for desertion / AWOL crap. Of course, I also don't support the death penalty - so if any Iraqi judge is sentencing a person to death (whether they are American, Iraqi, or even a confessed terrorist / Saddam himself), I would support attempts to organize both soldiers and civilians to rescue the person (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll just set him free afterwards, since everyone else still may have to be protected from the convict, if he's still dangerous).

Considering that the standard penalty for rape in Shia law as I know it is crucifixion, I'm guessing there will be many groups sent to 'rescue' rapists. How can you say that the law should be handed over to the Iraqis while not allowing them to act upon their own law? :S

I believe that the situation in Afghanistan will lead to the US attempting to involve Iran in the war. Iran is shored up against Russian influence (already encroaching on the region) and is undoubtedly eager to see the Talibs (especially in Pakistan) ousted in favour of a more friendly traditionalist regime. Considering many estimates place the Taliban has having influence in about 75% of the country, Iranian military presence is probably the only thing that can save NATO from losing Afghanistan completely.

[brigadista]

http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-07_e.htm

[Sativa Indica]

Removal of a military presence is essential to rebuilding a the way of life in Iraq. However, unless they are actually in CONTROL, not just of their own country, but along with it their resources, business' and all assests (naturally im all for nationalization) then the civil unrest wont stop.

The troops of todays Imperialism, are no longer soldiers weilding Muskets or Lee enfield rifles. The are dressed in suits, work in offices and they use the Pen and the PC to colonize the world, i think it as Perkins who said something along that lines. Therefore a 'military' withdrawl is for appearance purposes only.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's the first election pledge Obama has reneged on. He said 16 months all troops would be out.

[piet11111]

wasn't Karzai formerly a UNICOL executive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai

see UNOCAL connection part.

but clearly he was already known to the USA from his days in the Mujaheddin as a contact between the CIA and the afghans.
the USA obviously thought that he would be a very willing puppet and easily controlled but it seems they where wrong :lol:

[cyu]

they are not there to "protect iraqi lives" they are there to protect american interests, economically they have done this therefore their corporate etc foothold is completed..
what did you think this invasiosn was about?= not the Iraqi people that is for sure


Yes, I agree completely - after all, why did Bush go into Iraq and not Sudan, for example? The obvious difference is whether there's oil there or not.

My original post was a copy-and-paste from a discussion I had with a Republican - so it was more targeted toward someone trying to argue that Bush went in there with noble intentions (not much of a point posting it in this forum I know :D - not unless the FBI / NSA / CIA is monitoring it :tt1:)

[cyu]

Considering that the standard penalty for rape in Shia law as I know it is crucifixion, I'm guessing there will be many groups sent to 'rescue' rapists. How can you say that the law should be handed over to the Iraqis while not allowing them to act upon their own law? :S

Well, we are political revolutionaries ourselves, aren't we? We're not just after changing the American regime, but other regimes as well.

So the question is, if 60% of the people want Sharia law, does that mean the other 40% have to live with it? The answer to that question is actually why I have anarchist tendencies.

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.