Troops Out Now?

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

So as I'm sure most of you know, recently Representative Murtha (a Democrat from Penn.) made a proposal that included the language 'troops out now' about the Iraq War. It actually wasn't a troops out now request but was instead a proposal to "redeploy" troops in other areas of the Gulf. But anyway, what does everyone think about the course of the Iraq War? Do you believe the troops should come how now? Wait longer? Bring reinforcements? What? If you are for the troops coming home NOW (as I am), what are your reasons? Your thoughts on a possible civil war? The nature of self-determination for Iraqis? I just want to see others reasonings and thoughts on this important matter. Thanks.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the troops should be withdrawn immediately. Although this is unlikelty to happen.

[Spirit of '94]

I think it's obvious that the troops need to leave now. The Iraqis want them out.

I think a huge part of the Iraqi citizenry was genuinely delighted after the U.S. and British arrived; they just wanted them to turn around right after they "accomplished" their mission and get the hell out.

Here are my reasons for immediate withdrawal:

1) The Iraqis want them to leave. Let them vote on THAT.

2) The American working class is paying for this war. That's reason enough to demand that it end, but when you also include what they are being robbed of to finance it, it's a disgrace. I'm a student and even when I'm working I make half of the Fed's poverty level. I can't get Medical of any kind anymore, am not eligible for any kind of state assistance, and now, the only direct social benefit I receive (Financial Aid for school, which is a right anyway, but I digress) has now been slashed.

3) I don't hold a lot of personal animosity towards the "troops", but I'm convinced that a significant number of them are committing war crimes on a daily basis.

4) The invasion is illegal under both U.S. and International law.

5) Even if I did think the invasion had the potential to make Iraqi lives better, we've failed to do so.

There are more, but these are my main issues with the whole thing. I think it's important for us, as leftists, to understand that what the pundits are talking about on CNN and Fox is pretty likely though: U.S. troops pull out, the violence doesn't stop. It just becomes, officially, a civil war, probably ending in a theocratic, or at least Islamist, government.

So, take your pick. Outpost of Imperialism or Authoritarian Islamic theocracy.

Edit: Oh, and Nox, nice Mechanicus avatar. ;) Do you play?

[TheComrade]

So, take your pick. Outpost of Imperialism or Authoritarian Islamic theocracy.

I don't that that is the choice we face. Outpost of Imperialism, yes, the Americans are building large permenant bases in Iraq - they wish it to become a place from where they can launch an invasion against all the middle east when they run low on oil. But authoritarian Islamic theocracy? I don't think so - I think if we left (which we should do, now!) then the country will eventually split into 3 different countries - as it should and as it was before us british forced them together.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?op...pper&Itemid=182 (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) - a website (dunno who accurate it is) which has a running total of what the Iraq war has cost so far (alot!)

[KC]

That is from 40k, isn't it? I thought I recognized that from somewhere but I couldn't pin it down.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's a symbol of the Adepts of the Machine God - otherwise known as the Adeptus Mechanicus. I can no longer afford to collect the models so nowadays I just follow the hobby.

I chose it because of my affinity for technology.

[KC]

It's a symbol of the Adepts of the Machine God - otherwise known as the Adeptus Mechanicus. I can no longer afford to collect the models so nowadays I just follow the hobby.

Haha it is quite expensive. My Tyranids probably cost me a pretty penny, which I am thinking of selling to fund college/books/stuff.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What the hell are you nerds talking about? :)

[Bannockburn]

Well the troops are not going to leave anytime soon. In fact, Bush said so, although implicitly in his troop removal proposal a couple of weeks ago. There was a single statement that said, “we will not remove troops until the political-economic stability is secure”.

What that means, is that we will not leave until the neo-liberal policies we are placing in the middle east are safe and secure and can be defended by the new Iraqi military.

Actually, this insurgency is being fueled by the middle class who oppose such economic structure. Klein has wrote about this.

So, they won't leave anytime soon. However, I tend to think if they do, it won't cause any resentment among the Iraqi's, but it will cause resentment in the middle east insofar come into a country, blow it up and leave. Its a catch 22.

[Spirit of '94]

What the hell are you nerds talking about?

A WAAAAY overpriced hobby and game involving toy soldiers. :lol: Not very "revolutionary left" I'm afraid.

Anyway, back on topic:


I don't that that is the choice we face. Outpost of Imperialism, yes, the Americans are building large permenant bases in Iraq - they wish it to become a place from where they can launch an invasion against all the middle east when they run low on oil. But authoritarian Islamic theocracy? I don't think so - I think if we left (which we should do, now!) then the country will eventually split into 3 different countries - as it should and as it was before us british forced them together.

So, because Iraq reorganizes itself into three nations, thinks come out rosy?

You'll end up with a Kurdish capitalist state in the north and Sunni and Shiite theocracies/tribal governments in the other two states. How is splitting the country going to solve ANY of Iraq's issues?

I believed, at the onset of the war, that the Iraqi public, if givin' the chance, could come to a kind of political "peace". Now, I think the civil war has already started between Baathists and foreign "terrorists" and the Shiite power bases. Both of these (badly generalized, I'll admit) groups both view the Iraqi gov't and the Americans as OBSTACLES to their ultimate goals, which are now nothing more than establishing religous and tribal power blocks. The insurgents and the religous militias are too heavily armed, too well organized and too committed to NOT attempt a power grab after the U.S. withdraws.

I'm not arguing for the U.S.'s continued occupation. As has been stated before by Bannockburn, the neo-liberal servant state that the U.S. is establishing is far more ruinous for Iraq than any internal threat. I'm just saying that we need to be realistic. We're just trading one bad situation for a more "internal" bad situation.

Any hopes of a real democracy or even a fairly progressive society in Iraq are gone, in my opinion.

[KC]

A WAAAAY overpriced hobby and game involving toy soldiers. laugh.gif Not very "revolutionary left" I'm afraid.


It's overpriced. It's not very "revolutionary left". Yet it's still a blast to play.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:47 PM
Well the troops are not going to leave anytime soon. In fact, Bush said so, although implicitly in his troop removal proposal a couple of weeks ago. There was a single statement that said, “we will not remove troops until the political-economic stability is secure”.

What that means, is that we will not leave until the neo-liberal policies we are placing in the middle east are safe and secure and can be defended by the new Iraqi military.

Actually, this insurgency is being fueled by the middle class who oppose such economic structure. Klein has wrote about this.

So, they won't leave anytime soon. However, I tend to think if they do, it won't cause any resentment among the Iraqi's, but it will cause resentment in the middle east insofar come into a country, blow it up and leave. Its a catch 22.
It's not a catch-22. A US withdrawl wouldn't be seen by Iraqis as "blowing it up and leaving" it would be seen as a victory for resistance and would probably inspire people in other countries to resist imperialism. Other puppet governments in the middle east and elswhere may not like it because they would know that people in their countries would also be inspired to resist.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Dec 6 2005, 05:26 PM--> (Gravedigger @ Dec 6 2005, 05:26 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 02:47 PM
Well the troops are not going to leave anytime soon. In fact, Bush said so, although implicitly in his troop removal proposal a couple of weeks ago. There was a single statement that said, “we will not remove troops until the political-economic stability is secure”.

What that means, is that we will not leave until the neo-liberal policies we are placing in the middle east are safe and secure and can be defended by the new Iraqi military.

Actually, this insurgency is being fueled by the middle class who oppose such economic structure. Klein has wrote about this.

So, they won't leave anytime soon. However, I tend to think if they do, it won't cause any resentment among the Iraqi's, but it will cause resentment in the middle east insofar come into a country, blow it up and leave. Its a catch 22.
It's not a catch-22. A US withdrawl wouldn't be seen by Iraqis as "blowing it up and leaving" it would be seen as a victory for resistance and would probably inspire people in other countries to resist imperialism. Other puppet governments in the middle east and elswhere may not like it because they would know that people in their countries would also be inspired to resist. [/b]
A-Fucking-Greed!


the troops should be withdrawn immediately. Although this is unlikelty to happen.
I totally agree. However, any time I propose that, some asshole always says "OMG WE CANT LIEK JUST LIEK LEAVE OMG". Yes, we can. We have fucked up enough shit, I'm sure they don't want us staying any longer.

It's like "picking up and leaving" is not even an option in debates. It's just "how should we better guide the war (ie massacre some more people in a more cost/PR friendly way)" instead of "We need to get the fuck out now."

That's one of my beef with the Dems. They never resisted war, they just wanted it "waged differently" with an "exit strategy". So, we kill them, THEN we leave in a "good fashion"?

Fuck this country.

[enigma2517]

Ownthink showed me a video the other day of private contractors killing innocent Iraqi's on their way to work. Pretty gruesome :(

If somebody could find that and post it up it'd be great.

[Ownthink]

I'll post it in a second.

Beware, it's very sickening. I'd suggest cheering yourself up for it with This (http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/december/ogrish-dot-com-ied_kills_10_marines.wmv)

Here are the evil Imperialists killing innocent civilians with no regard for human dignity or life.

http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Bareknucklep...SIVE_10122.html (http://www.flurl.com/uploaded/Bareknucklepoliticscom_EXCLUSIVE_10122.html)

[OkaCrisis]

On top of all that's been said, I say troops out now because I don't believe that "We're going into a recession... Let's start a War!!!" is good economics.

[WUOrevolt]

I don't know if you are familar with the Iraqi Communist Party, but here is a picture of them rejoicing after Saddam's fall.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticne...ges/iraqis2.jpg (http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/iraq/saddam/images/iraqis2.jpg)

However, I do believe, although I may be mistaken, they are now involved in the insurgency as an independent group, not linked to Zarqawi or Al Qaeda at all.

The hope for freedom in Iraq lies in the ICP and the feminist women, not foreign insurgents or an occupying force.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As far as I knew the ICP was in the interum US-made government. They've had a very uneaven history marred by Stalinist baffoonery. I have heard them called the "Mayrtar's party" because they have been systematically repressed by a series of governments.

If they have joined the insurgency that would be a welcome about-face! Do you have any links to support this?

Additionally, I really don't buy the whole "forign insurgency" thing. I'm sure people from other countries have gone there to fight with the resistance, but in order for a resistance of this sort to last as long as it has, it must have a great deal of support from local people otherwise Iraqis could have easily turned in the "forign" insurgents over to the US and probably gotten a montiary reward for doing so.

The only "forign fighters" are the occupiers.

[WUOrevolt]

Well, there are insurgents insurgents linked to Al Qaeda from Yemen, Syria, Iran and other middle eastern countries.

Inside the Resistance By Zaki Chehab

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:59 PM
Well, there are insurgents insurgents linked to Al Qaeda from Yemen, Syria, Iran and other middle eastern countries.

Inside the Resistance By Zaki Chehab
Some. A very small percentage (2%) of all the dead account for foreign fighters from the Insurgency in Iraq.

Most of the Insurgents are pissed off Iraqi's who want their fucking country back.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 7 2005, 05:46 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 7 2005, 05:46 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 07:59 PM
Well, there are insurgents insurgents linked to Al Qaeda from Yemen, Syria, Iran and other middle eastern countries.

Inside the Resistance By Zaki Chehab
Some. A very small percentage (2%) of all the dead account for foreign fighters from the Insurgency in Iraq.

Most of the Insurgents are pissed off Iraqi's who want their fucking country back. [/b]
I think that alot, if not all, of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreign fighters who want to impose strict muslim law on Iraq and are fighting as jihadis.

In the December 15, 2005 issue of Rolling Stone magazine there is an article called the insurgents tale which is an anonymous insurgent and Al Qaeda fighter from Yemen who talks about his role in the insurgency as well as the Afghan soviet war and the resistance to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's gotta be a better source for data than "Rolling Stone". Does anyone know of some good sites for just getting statistics? I spent the last 15 minutes trying to find info on this on google and came up with squat!

[Correa]

I say pull out the troops and send them to New Orleans to clean up the debris that is still there. It will be good therapy for the boys and girls that just got done killing innocent women and children.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:21 AM
I say pull out the troops and send them to New Orleans to clean up the debris that is still there. It will be good therapy for the boys and girls that just got done killing innocent women and children.
I sense that you are joking, but still, soldiers from Iraq WERE stationed in New Orleans after Katrina. That is why "looters" (A.K.A. starving people looking for food in a post-disaster city) were "shot on sight". :-/

[redchrisfalling]

The troops out now policy is short sighted and foolish idea. I agree that the war never should have started but now that it is done the Americans can't pull out. Seriously, i wish they could but it would be a disaster.

If the Americans pull out now a civil war will erupt between the suni and shiats, no question. If a civil war starts there it will almost certinly spread to Iran who would very likely drag Jordon and Lebeneon into it. With all that civil unrest flying around so close to home the oppressed minorities in Saudi Arabi would start to act up and oust the royals, ending the Americans supply of cheap oil. This enmass regime change would create instabilaty, and a huge power vacum. The only power able to fill that void, other than the Americans, is the Chinesse; who we know are sniffing around for oil.

This is why the Americans wont pull out, i dont want them to pull out because it is uncertin who would end up on top of the civil (religious) war. It wopuld most likely be a narrow minded theocracy.

No matter what else Saddam was he kept a lid on things.

[Correa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:11 AM
I sense that you are joking, but still, soldiers from Iraq WERE stationed in New Orleans after Katrina. That is why "looters" (A.K.A. starving people looking for food in a post-disaster city) were "shot on sight". :-/
I'm fully aware of this. Don't forget the Blackwater mercenaries.

[Spirit of '94]

It's overpriced. It's not very "revolutionary left". Yet it's still a blast to play.

I didn't mean to sound antagonistic; I play myself, and it is a blast.


Some. A very small percentage (2%) of all the dead account for foreign fighters from the Insurgency in Iraq.

Most of the Insurgents are pissed off Iraqi's who want their fucking country back.

Where did you get that figure from? Just curious. I think you're right about the insurgency being Iraqi based though. That said, I think it'd be a little naive to think that Syria, Iran, et al. are sitting idly by and watching what's going on across the border.


the troops out now policy is short sighted and foolish idea. I agree that the war never should have started but now that it is done the Americans can't pull out. Seriously, i wish they could but it would be a disaster.

If the Americans pull out now a civil war will erupt between the suni and shiats, no question. If a civil war starts there it will almost certinly spread to Iran who would very likely drag Jordon and Lebeneon into it. With all that civil unrest flying around so close to home the oppressed minorities in Saudi Arabi would start to act up and oust the royals, ending the Americans supply of cheap oil. This enmass regime change would create instabilaty, and a huge power vacum. The only power able to fill that void, other than the Americans, is the Chinesse; who we know are sniffing around for oil.

Do you believe that an American client state is more in our interests? More in the Iraqi's interest? I don't think anyone is "happy" with the alternative to an American/British withdrawal. The point is, the Iraqis deserve to determine their own fate, even if it means spiraling into civil war.

The Sunni and Shiite groups in Iraq have made it very clear they want the troops out. We have no right to "save" them from civil war, especially by occupying their nation, harrassing and killing its citizens and favoring certain cooperative elites.

The Iraqis seem to prefer the prospect to American occupation.

This is how Bush thinks. We're the most powerful, we're the "good guys", so we have the right to treat sovereign nations and people as goddam pieces on a chess board.

THE IRAQIS DEMAND SELF-DETERMINATION. THEY DEMAND AN END TO OCCUPATION.

It's time we gave it to them.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:40 AM
As far as I knew the ICP was in the interum US-made government. They've had a very uneaven history marred by Stalinist baffoonery. I have heard them called the "Mayrtar's party" because they have been systematically repressed by a series of governments.

If they have joined the insurgency that would be a welcome about-face! Do you have any links to support this?

Additionally, I really don't buy the whole "forign insurgency" thing. I'm sure people from other countries have gone there to fight with the resistance, but in order for a resistance of this sort to last as long as it has, it must have a great deal of support from local people otherwise Iraqis could have easily turned in the "forign" insurgents over to the US and probably gotten a montiary reward for doing so.

The only "forign fighters" are the occupiers.
Many communists are involved in the insurgency. But they have broken off from the Iraqi Communist Party. My bad. Sorry.


As for the foreign fighters, there are many but they are in the minority.

The insurgency is made of of dissident communists, baathists, nationalists, groups of Iraqi soldiers, and sunni and shia religious groups, as well as others. There are over 40 different orginazations involved in the insurgency.


Check this link out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 7 2005, 05:35 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 7 2005, 05:35 AM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 07:59 PM
Well, there are insurgents insurgents linked to Al Qaeda from Yemen, Syria, Iran and other middle eastern countries.

Inside the Resistance By Zaki Chehab
Some. A very small percentage (2%) of all the dead account for foreign fighters from the Insurgency in Iraq.

Most of the Insurgents are pissed off Iraqi's who want their fucking country back. [/b]
According to the BBC, foreign insurgents make up 10% of the insurgency.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4447778.stm

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Dec 8 2005, 05:36 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Dec 8 2005, 05:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:35 AM

[email protected] 6 2005, 07:59 PM
Well, there are insurgents insurgents linked to Al Qaeda from Yemen, Syria, Iran and other middle eastern countries.

Inside the Resistance By Zaki Chehab
Some. A very small percentage (2%) of all the dead account for foreign fighters from the Insurgency in Iraq.

Most of the Insurgents are pissed off Iraqi's who want their fucking country back.
According to the BBC, foreign insurgents make up 10% of the insurgency.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4447778.stm [/b]

While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, according to various sources, foreign fighters make up a small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi.[9] The estimate by the Pentagon's own figures; in an analysis (which has not been independently analyzed) of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 non-Iraqis were confirmed as "foreign fighters" (as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey). [10] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Resista...eign_insurgents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Resistance#Foreign_insurgents)

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 08:25 AM

So, take your pick. Outpost of Imperialism or Authoritarian Islamic theocracy.

I don't that that is the choice we face. Outpost of Imperialism, yes, the Americans are building large permenant bases in Iraq - they wish it to become a place from where they can launch an invasion against all the middle east when they run low on oil. But authoritarian Islamic theocracy? I don't think so - I think if we left (which we should do, now!) then the country will eventually split into 3 different countries - as it should and as it was before us british forced them together.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?op...pper&Itemid=182 (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) - a website (dunno who accurate it is) which has a running total of what the Iraq war has cost so far (alot!)
What are you talking about? What do you mean forced them together? And how is it better to split it up to 3 parts? Why can't we slpit your country in to three parts?

[deak]

the troops out now policy is short sighted and foolish idea. I agree that the war never should have started but now that it is done the Americans can't pull out. Seriously, i wish they could but it would be a disaster.


i hate to quibble on things that just cannot be known (i.e. the future) but i find it rather egotistical to assume that the iraqi people aren't capable to work shit out for themselves. why do we assume that if the west were to simply leave them to their own devices, that they couldn't survive. seems to me that much of the problems that occuer in the middle east (and the world for that matter), currently and historically, have roots that can be traced by the meddlings of other nations and the propogation of perverse western capatalism. Simply put, the introduction of a western style of capatalism and imperialism onto autonomous and self sufficient societies has been consistantly an root cause for unnessesary and cutthroat competition as well as unnessesary violence between peoples. I wouldn't completely rule out the religious intolerance aspects, but i would have to say that the people in iraq are just as intelligent and capable as anyone else in this world to rule themselves. They aren't children we must coddle, anymore than the supposed reality of the white man's burden durring slavery times. Regrdless of our intentions, the actions of the west has not seemed to ever really help the situation because we act without concideration or understanding and always as if we know what is right.

which brings me quite nicely to this.... (gotta love a segway)


What are you talking about? What do you mean forced them together? And how is it better to split it up to 3 parts? Why can't we slpit your country in to three parts?

most of the middle east as we know it, at least border wise, was not created by the peoples of the middle east but redrawn up by the british and other colonial powers after the breaking up of the ottoman empire. thus, without examining things such as belief systems, religious and cultural differences, certain groups were forced to live with other groups and likewise hemogenous groups were divided and redispursed throughout various seperate nations. This dispersal and mixing, if done naturally and willfully, can be a wonderful thing; however, when done forcefully and strategically (just as africa was divided between the brits, the dutch and the french) it creates much annimosity and tenssions between folks and reverses the process of creating tolerant peoples. When folks feel threatened or forced upon, or scared of differences thrust upon them all in one foul swoop, they tend to grow hate. I'm not saying that there wasn't annimosity that existed before occidental intervention, however, this certainly polarized the issue.

But in the end we can not know what will happen if we pull out, nor can we know how much more harm we can do if we stay. But what we can know, is that it isn't our right to force our belief systems and values on other folks who are just as capable of leading themselves as any sentient being.

(well that was long winded)

[deak]

oh one last thing..... sorry....

i am very skeptical about the argument that if we let iraq fall into civil war or get a religious dictatorship, that is will spread evilness to the rest of the middle east. the same argument was used to justify korea and vietnam as per the so-called "domino effect." history has proven that it is bullshit reasoning, merely another scare tactic.

[Doshka]

I don't think it would "spread evil" either, I think that's a little retarded, but I do think it would be a disaster if another Islamist revolution swept Iraq as it did Iran, which, right now, is very likely. And redchristfalling? You do not understand the Jordanian government at all if you think there's even a possibility that Jordan would get pulled into the war. And I think Lebanon is a little busy.

Should the US pull-out? I don't know. I don't think it's fair that they should be allowed to fuck the whole country up and then run home. At the same time, I believe that Iraqis should be given the complete freedom to govern themselves, in whichever form that government comes.

And deak? Very impressive historical background, but I don't get your point. Yes, the British and the French cut us up into the countries we are today, but over 60 years of living within these borders have made us "Jordanian", "Iraqi", "Lebanese" or whatever. All we need is for the Arab countries to break off into countries based on their Shiaa or Sunneh identities. That way we can have many different versions of Zionism, fun right?

And I'd like some examples of peaceful country separations if you don't mind. Pakistan remains on less than friendly terms with India, the Kurds are fucked and hated in Iraq (and to be honest screw the Kurds, all they do is support the Americans), Sudan is obviously fucked, and I really cant imagine a situation where any country is broken up without destruction and/or war close behind. The Arabs should be uniting, not splitting up even more. How can Iraq ever stand up to the western powers, or become great at all, if they are segmented? Plus, I think you are very naive to think that such a thing is possible in a country with oil. Land-questions are too complicated. Who gets the most oil-ridden area? Who is stuck with the crappy desert land? Who decides?

[deak]

Well my point about the historical observations of the formation of borders in the Middle East was basically to demonstrate how Western meddling always turns out to have completely unknown and often detrimental concequences. I'm not saying that Iraq turning into a bunch of Balkin states would be necessarily a good thing, but it shouldn't be OUR (America and Britain's) decision. It should be by the people. And I trust that in the long run if the people are given the opportunity to truly have self-determination, that they will act in the best interest of the people, and that the West does not have a monopoly on intelligent governing (not that I'd even say we act intelligently half the time). I totally agree that it's bullshit that we come in like a rapist and fuck a country and then leave, but I cannot see that our pressence is being beneficial right now. Again, I'm no fortune teller, but I also believe that much of the rhetoric surrounding why not to pull out (at least here in the States) is based less on truth and more on scare tactics that if we leave everyone will go crazy and terrorism will flurish and hell will become physical on earth. It sounds like the same bullshit that was told to us to get us into Iraq in the first place. I think that optimally we should allow the Iraqis to tell us what THEY want from us, which is how we should have proceded from the very begining. If they ask us to stay in a true unstaged election or town meeting or what have you, then I believe it is our duty to try to repair the damage we caused. But, to do so we need to first understand what THEY want and how THEY envision their country's future and work towards their ecpectaions and goals not ours. If that means they want a religious state, then so be it, that's their choice. However, I truely doubt that that would be their ultimate choice.

[Doshka]

I think you are a little too optimistic about the outcomes if you think that a religious revolution will not take place. Foreign presence in the Middle East has increased the domination of Islam in the Arab world tremendously. I saw that after the hotel bombings here in Amman. I'm not talking about the bombings themselves, but the people's reaction to them.

I also think you're being more than a little naive if you think the great "Coalition of the fuckers" are ready or even willing to have an un-stages election. The problem isn't with what you are suggesting. It's with the fact that it's totally unrealistic in today's world. Haliburton and the rest of the fuckers want to make as much off of Iraq as they can, that was the whole point. And what's more, they will.

Perhaps in the long-run people will realize what is best for themselves. But that realization will only come after they have put whichever government they support now in place.

[Devil$tator]

OK, let's look at it this way....

How fucked up is Iraq with the Americans occupying it? very.

Now imagine how much more fucked-up it would be without the troops there. I'm sure the situation, explosive as it is, would finally detonate.

At the same time, the US wanted this war, it got rid of Saddam, it made a giant mess, why the hell should it leave now, so it can screw over another country? They wanted this invasion so bad, they ignored the UN's wishes, ignored the rest of the world's wishes, charged headlong into Afghanistan and Iraq, and now it should just pull out like that? No way.

The Iraqis should be able to govern themselves how they want, but first of all, they need stability. History has shown that democracy doesn't work too well in extreme situations.

[Doshka]

Wow. That was perceptive Devil$tator. Except you didn't really give a solution, did you? Nor did you actually address the predicament either. The problem, since you don't seem to grasp it, is that though we would all love to see the US stabilize Iraq that is not exactly what is going on. What is going on is US companies seizing the opportunity to milk this war for all it's worth, and with the oil, it's worth quite a bit. The US is also acting as more a setback to stability in the country by their staged-elections, prisoner round-ups, torture chambers, looting, and assassinations. And that's only what we know is going on. Just three weeks ago I read an article in Newsweek that pointed out a very disturbing event. Apparently, four prisoners escaped from a high-security prison in Afghanistan, and their names were released with very vague identification pictures, only a month after the escape. But whatever, the US officials gave their names. Then a lawyer in Texas asks for another known prisoner as a witness in a case of his, and they were forced to admit that he was one of the four escapees. Even though his name had not been released with the others. I'm just mentioning this story to point out that nobody actually knows what is going on. So unfortunately, US presence is far from stabilizing, and in this respect the US should fuck off, and the Iraqi people should be given the complete freedom to govern themselves.
That said, it is still not fair for the Americans to be allowed to run away now, after everything they have done. And therein lies our predicament, and the topic of our discussion.



why the hell should it leave now, so it can screw over another country?

What are you talking about? Which other country? Stick to the subject. It gets confusing otherwise. We're not talking about general US domination. We're talking about Iraq.

[Morpheus]

it is still not fair for the Americans to be allowed to run away now, after everything they have done

That logic could be used to justify any occupation. Should the Nazis not have been allowed to run from France, Poland, etc. after everything they did? The US government isn't some benevolent entity that accidentally invaded another country, it went into Iraq to conquer it, seize its oil, and impose a puppet government. Just because you trash a country while trying to conquer it doesn't make that conquest legitimate. They should be punished for their war crimes, yes, but allowing the US to keep Iraq, which is what the US staying in Iraq means, rewards the conquerers by giving them what they tried to take, it doesn't punish them. The notion that the US should stay in Iraq to "clean up its mess" is like putting the mafia in charge of the police.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Devil$[email protected] 10 2005, 10:35 AM
The Iraqis should be able to govern themselves how they want, but first of all, they need stability. History has shown that democracy doesn't work too well in extreme situations.
History has shown that democracy don't work at all under occupation. Look at Vietnam and the governments the US put there: the US blocked a vote to unify VIetnam because they felt, as IKE admitted, that the vote wouldn't go their way. The rulers of the US view democracy as something that's preferable when convienient to their interests, but also totally expendable when not in their intersts... that's no democracy at all. That's like saying you have democracy under a monarch as long as your voteing dosn't challenge the monarch's absolute power.

HAs the US changes since the cold war and is this a benevolent imperialism? Well the fact that at the same time Bush was telling the country that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy, the US was plotting to take-out a democratically elected president in Venusuela suggests that our rulers have not chaged.

[Creature]

This has probably been said before but I wish to state my opinion.

I believe that America should not have gone into Iraq. That Bush I had more sense then Bush II and didnt go into Bahgdad to avoid the quagmire that we now see today. The invasion was poorly planned, so effectively not much good can come of it. Now I believe that the time for the American troops to leave has expired and that, as much as I hate to say it (being one of the biggest opposers of the war you have ever met), the troops should stay in Iraq. Unfortunately the troops are now paying for the administrations mistake with their lives. I do not like saying this, but the troops should stay, they do not deserve to die since it was not their mistake. The longer the troops are in Iraq, the more the American administration will suffer, and suffer they should! It just how ever is unfortunate that the troops have to suffer and more lives need to be lost.

[Correa]

I believe that America should not have gone into Iraq.

Good because it is very illegal.


That Bush I had more sense then Bush II and didnt go into Bahgdad to avoid the quagmire that we now see today. The invasion was poorly planned, so effectively not much good can come of it.

Yes his father might have had more brain cells, but the point is it is illegal no matter how well it might have been executed.


Now I believe that the time for the American troops to leave has expired and that, as much as I hate to say it (being one of the biggest opposers of the war you have ever met), the troops should stay in Iraq.

Stay in Iraq? Why? Do you support imperialism?


The longer the troops are in Iraq, the more the American administration will suffer, and suffer they should!

and so will the Iraqi people!

[deak]

of course I'm being over optimistic to think that the US (or even the Iraqi councel) would allow actual fair elections to decide what Iraqi's want with us. But this thread was about what should happen not what will. As far as the religious aspects, I understand that the West has increasingly radicalized nationalism and religious extremeism, but I also think that MOST people (not that I have statistics) are not interested in Iraq becoming under a Taliban-esque rule, IF they were allowed options to choose from. Most people want all the same basic things: safety, food, and to be able to live as they choose. I do think it's kind of naieve to assume that those radicals making the most noise represent the population as a whole. That's like assuming the fucked up religious right who kill abortion doctors are representative of most Americans (or even most Christians), they just get more press because they scream louder. That said, I also know that historically, it's extreme groups, extreme polaticians, and religious waccos that usually end up getting what they want over the common folks. So who knows what will happen, I just wanted to make the point that we are doing no good assuming that everyone but the Iraqi people know how to make a great Iraqi country. It's just whether they are truley allowed to or not.

[Correa]

The US has ensured through out history that 3rd world contries do not make any decisions by themselves. When they do the CIA usually carries out some kind of attack or offensive as a minimum. With that said, if the US is directly organizing and "monitoring" the election there is NO way the US will let them choose. They probably already have the winner. Let's wait an see who America picks!

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

The invasion was poorly planned, so effectively not much good can come of it.

The invasion was wrong. Invading Iraq to create an undemocratic US client state = flat out wrong. Doesn't matter if the invasion was planned excellently or poorly, wrong either way.


Now I believe that the time for the American troops to leave has expired and that, as much as I hate to say it (being one of the biggest opposers of the war you have ever met), the troops should stay in Iraq. Unfortunately the troops are now paying for the administrations mistake with their lives. I do not like saying this, but the troops should stay, they do not deserve to die since it was not their mistake. The longer the troops are in Iraq, the more the American administration will suffer, and suffer they should! It just how ever is unfortunate that the troops have to suffer and more lives need to be lost.

(sarcasm)Ah yes, poor Dick Cheney suffering, and HOW. I mean, having the arms and oil companies you are affiliated with raking in billions of dollars and exerting unbelievable political control, what suffering! I mean, watching yourself and your friends get rich, almost makes me feel sorry for the guy. I mean, the Republican Party's political donors have only made a few hundred billion dollars off this war, lets torture them by giving them a few TRILLION dollars this time. Then after the administration suffers enough we can vote em out and replace them with some Republicans who will run this war EFFICIENTLY. (/sarcasm)

As long as the American administration continues to propagate the racist lie that the Iraqis are too stupid to run their own country and as long as the spectre of a civil war hangs over Iraq, their will be infinite justification for American soldiers to stay in Iraq, defend American economic interests and repress democracy. Iraq IS currently a violent country, but the violence is between Americans and the insurgency, not Iraqis vs Iraqis. The only sectarian violence occuring is when the Iraqi puppet state sends Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces to attack Sunni insurgents and vice-versa.

[Guerrilla22]

The current Iraqi government is a puppet regime and US puppet regimes tend to get overthrown eventually. Just ask Batista and the Shah.

[Spark]

First off I think the US should never have gone to war with Iraq. While I believe that yes it was a good thing that an authoritarian regime was removed and replaced with a fledgling democracy, the United States still had no right to do so and did it for all of the wrong reasons. It sets an international precedent that powerful nations get to model weaker nations as they wish just because the stronger nations are stronger. In addition it adds to instability in international politics.

I however think that an immediate and complete withdrawal is a rash decision. I'm not sure on a timeline, but I think the bulk of forces can be removed rather quickly. Any forces remaining would be used in training Iraq police and armed forces (and would thus be rather minimal - in addition this force would ideally be more international thus minimizing the influence of any one nation). But the US presence as a whole should be ended ASAP. I'd rather see more UN influence to curtail US imperialism.

[Guerrilla22]

I however think that an immediate and complete withdrawal is a rash decision.

And what would be rational? Continuing the occupation and domination of a sovereign state by the uS? Continuing the killing on all sides?


I'd rather see more UN influence to curtail US imperialism.

The UN is an imperialist orginzation also. Iraq should be left to the Iraqis, its their country, let them select their own leadership.

[Spark]

And what would be rational? Continuing the occupation and domination of a sovereign state by the uS? Continuing the killing on all sides?

I'd hardly call reducing forces to a training level size (certainly no more than a few regiments) an occupation.


The UN is an imperialist orginzation also.

I'd rather see the UN than the US. Even if it is imperialist (which I'd argue with you on, I think of it more as just useless) it'd certainly help to foster democracy.


Iraq should be left to the Iraqis, its their country, let them select their own leadership.

This is why I'd like to see democracy. If an authoritarian government comes into power, thats not the government of the Iraqis is it? Even if it is at the time the government of the people it won't remain that way forever and if the people change their mind about the government it would be hard to change now wouldn't it?

[Guerrilla22]

I'd hardly call reducing forces to a training level size (certainly no more than a few regiments) an occupation.

I would.


I'd rather see the UN than the US. Even if it is imperialist (which I'd argue with you on, I think of it more as just useless) it'd certainly help to foster democracy.

How can you argue that the UN is not an imperialist organization. Do you know who started the UN? It was established by the Us and British governments as a way to further the interest of states (incorrectly called nations). Also, democracy is a falesy. Its an illusion pupotrated by western governments. There has never been a democracy in the history of the world. Republics yes.

[Spark]

I would.
If the Iraqi forces could forcibly remove foreign (US) forces, which would be the case with only a few regiments (3,000 at most), then I wouldn't call it an occupation. The foreign forces would no longer have the ability to exert control and thus are no longer occupiers.


How can you argue that the UN is not an imperialist organization. Do you know who started the UN? It was established by the Us and British governments as a way to further the interest of states (incorrectly called nations). Also, democracy is a falesy. Its an illusion pupotrated by western governments. There has never been a democracy in the history of the world. Republics yes.

Because typically anti-Western countries like China and Russia have the veto in the security council. The UN serves to end its own imperialism. And it wasn't founded by just the US and Britain. The Soviet Union, China, France and other countries all had a part. There is also the representation of almost every country in the world coming from every different kind of government.

Democracy is not a fallacy. Democracy can entail either a republic or direct democracy (which is what you are suggesting and which Western governments do not claim to). There is an example of direct democracy in this world and that would be Switzerland.

[Guerrilla22]

The idea for the UN was that of mebers of the US government. It was Roosevelt that coined the term United Nations. I would hardly call China and Russian anti-US. China is the US' largest trading partner and vice versa.

The term direct democracy is misleading, because even in Switzerland citizens cannot vote on all decisions made by their government, which is the definition of democracy.

[Correa]

There has never been a democracy in the history of the world.

Are you familiar with Cuba? ;)

[Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:11 PM
The idea for the UN was that of mebers of the US government. It was Roosevelt that coined the term United Nations. I would hardly call China and Russian anti-US. China is the US' largest trading partner and vice versa.

The term direct democracy is misleading, because even in Switzerland citizens cannot vote on all decisions made by their government, which is the definition of democracy.
Regardless, conflicting interests render the whole institution more or less useless. By introducing the UN into Iraq it nullifies the imperialisms of any individual country.


And sure, even if there is no completely direct democracy, some democracy is better than no democracy. Some control, some power, is better than none at all.

Would you rather an immediate US withdrawal and the replacement of the current regime by an authoritarian Wahabist regime?

[Guerrilla22]

Are you familiar with Cuba?

I am refering to the proper terminology for for governments such as the US, Canada , Swtizerland ect. By definition there exist no such thing as democracy. These governments should always be refered to as republics. Cuba doesn't meet the definition of deocracy either, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Regardless, conflicting interests render the whole institution more or less useless. By introducing the UN into Iraq it nullifies the imperialisms of any individual country.

Outside influences in the Middle East is the reason the middle east is so screwed up in the first place. I would like to see for once, Arabs making decisions on how to run their countries.

[QUOTE]If this authoritarain regime can bring back the country's electricity, get the water running again, distribute food and restore order in the country, then yes.

[Spark]

So I don't get it, you're saying an exploitative elite class of Iraqis is better than all the Iraqis calling the shots?

I'm sorry, regardless of whether all government is inherently evil, representative government is far better than a government solely in the name of an elite few.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:45 AM
I'm sorry, regardless of whether all government is inherently evil, representative government is far better than a government solely in the name of an elite few.
An ideal "democracy" cannot exist in a Capitalist system, let alone in a nation controlled by imperialists.

All occupying troops must get out of Iraq now.

[Devil$tator]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:34 PM
Wow. That was perceptive Devil$tator. Except you didn't really give a solution, did you? Nor did you actually address the predicament either. The problem, since you don't seem to grasp it, is that though we would all love to see the US stabilize Iraq that is not exactly what is going on. What is going on is US companies seizing the opportunity to milk this war for all it's worth, and with the oil, it's worth quite a bit. The US is also acting as more a setback to stability in the country by their staged-elections, prisoner round-ups, torture chambers, looting, and assassinations. And that's only what we know is going on. Just three weeks ago I read an article in Newsweek that pointed out a very disturbing event. Apparently, four prisoners escaped from a high-security prison in Afghanistan, and their names were released with very vague identification pictures, only a month after the escape. But whatever, the US officials gave their names. Then a lawyer in Texas asks for another known prisoner as a witness in a case of his, and they were forced to admit that he was one of the four escapees. Even though his name had not been released with the others. I'm just mentioning this story to point out that nobody actually knows what is going on. So unfortunately, US presence is far from stabilizing, and in this respect the US should fuck off, and the Iraqi people should be given the complete freedom to govern themselves.
That said, it is still not fair for the Americans to be allowed to run away now, after everything they have done. And therein lies our predicament, and the topic of our discussion.



why the hell should it leave now, so it can screw over another country?

What are you talking about? Which other country? Stick to the subject. It gets confusing otherwise. We're not talking about general US domination. We're talking about Iraq.
*sighs* as much as the US are fucking the country up, I strongly doubt what ever forces the Iraqis possess would be able to control it. The US forces are already having trouble as it is, you seriously think that Iraqis can control this mess properly now?

I KNOW what's going on in Iraq, I'm not bloody stupid. I know they're taking the bloody oil, I know it's an atrocity. But I'm sure that if the US left Iraq now, we'd be even more fucked. Because you see, the Iraqi forces are basically non-existent, and just newly formed. I strongly doubt they have the ability to keep the country under control.

As for my off-topicality, let me kindly point out to you that before in this discussion, there was some mention of some kind of game/toys whatever, I cannot remember, and off-topicality does occur. Considering I was still talking politics whereas the other posters (I'm not being antagonistic here to you guys, I have no problem at all with it, just explaining) were totally off.

And, let's see, first we had Afghanistan, now we have Iraq. If the American people remain sheep for the rest of Bush's term as president, or, with a lot of luck, Bush gets kicked out of office, chances are he might invade another country.

[Spark]

Originally posted by Intifada+Dec 13 2005, 11:27 AM--> (Intifada @ Dec 13 2005, 11:27 AM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 08:45 AM
I'm sorry, regardless of whether all government is inherently evil, representative government is far better than a government solely in the name of an elite few.
An ideal "democracy" cannot exist in a Capitalist system, let alone in a nation controlled by imperialists.

All occupying troops must get out of Iraq now. [/b]
I never even said they'd have an ideal democracy. I just don't undertand why you'd all rather leave them with nothing rather than something. Is capitalism not better than feudalism? Is a liberal democracy not better than an oppressive authoritarian regime?

Yes, communism is better than all of these but its not about to happen now. As I've already said, a few soldiers aren't going to be able to control Iraq. And don't just say "THEY MUST LEAVE NOW." Otherwise I can just start saying "THEY MUST STAY" and we can just start flinging mud at each other.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:45 AM
So I don't get it, you're saying an exploitative elite class of Iraqis is better than all the Iraqis calling the shots?

I'm sorry, regardless of whether all government is inherently evil, representative government is far better than a government solely in the name of an elite few.
The elite class in Iraq already is in power, well will be after the elections. They're the candidates making up the political parties. Most of them are educated in the US or Western Europe and come from affluence. These are the people the US wants to run the country.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:12 PM
I never even said they'd have an ideal democracy.
You did say that a representative government is far better than a government solely in the name of an elite few, as if the Americans are even interested in a representative Iraqi government.

Either way, we should all know that the imperialist invasion never intended upon giving Iraqis proper democratic control of their country, right?

If you think otherwise, you are naive at best.


Is capitalism not better than feudalism?

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.

The Iraqis need control of Iraq if they are to progress towards capitalism.

Imperialism is their biggest threat to that progression.


Is a liberal democracy not better than an oppressive authoritarian regime?


Yes.

But, as I have already stated, the occupation of Iraq will not bring about a liberal democracy.

What we have at the moment in Iraq, is an oppressive and authoritarian puppet regime.

Can you support that?


Yes, communism is better than all of these but its not about to happen now.

Too right.


As I've already said, a few soldiers aren't going to be able to control Iraq.

There only needs to be a puppet-master.


And don't just say "THEY MUST LEAVE NOW." Otherwise I can just start saying "THEY MUST STAY" and we can just start flinging mud at each other.

So far you have provided no legitimate reason as to why foreign troops must stay in Iraq.

[Guerrilla22]

Interference in the politcal processes of othe rregions of the world also qualifies as imperialism.

[dso79]

This article counters most of the arguments used by those who oppose an immediate withdrawal:

If America Left Iraq - The case for cutting and running (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/iraq-withdrawal)

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

I never even said they'd have an ideal democracy. I just don't undertand why you'd all rather leave them with nothing rather than something. Is capitalism not better than feudalism? Is a liberal democracy not better than an oppressive authoritarian regime?

Bourgeois democracy is definitely better than an oppressive authoritarian regime. I still don't see why these are the choices however. What makes you think the Iraqis are incapable of forming their own democratic, Socialist society? You seem to be arguing that the main competing interests for power are the Americans and theocratic Muslims. I would bring the fact to your attention that these theocratic Muslims had almost no support in pre-war Iraq (or even in the initial months after the invasion). It is only when these groups, the Mahdi Army, the Muslim Scholars Association, etc. took up the resistance cause that they garnered any kind of real public support. With every passing day that the occupation stays in Iraq these groups become more and more powerful as people are driven to them as the only powerful anti-US forces. We shoulda been outta there long ago, and we should still get out NOW. Secondly, you seem to advocate democracy for Iraqis, yet as you point out, support for theocratic regimes is increasing. So what if the majority of Iraqis supported a authoritarian theocracy? Would you still support their democratic will to have such a govt. or would you support continued US involvement to force a bourgeois republic? This is one of the contradictions of supporting the occupation...

[Morpheus]

The current regime the US installed in Iraq is a puppet dictatorship, no better than what Al-Sadr would establish. Iraq under the US already has torture, massacres, censorship, etc. Even Allawi, the Iraqi CIA agent the US had serving as "prime minister" in the second half of 2004, admits human rights abuses under the current regime are as bad as they were under Saddam. Talk of bringing "democracy" to Iraq is just talk. The US supports many dictatorships across the world and has overthrown many representative governments when it didn't do what it wanted. If the Iraqi government doesn't do what its told (which is unlikely considering its reliance on US troops) it will be overthrown as well. Saddam Hussein had elections too, those are meaningless. It's just a show to create the illusion the people are in charge.

[Correa]

Iraq should not be the focus of concentration. Not for a revolution anyways. Latin America is the were immediate hope remains. Iraq will end up being a puppet state for years to come. Of course how it will turn up can be argued.

[Guerrilla22]

I agree the conditions for revolution are much better in Latin America, however this thread is about Iraq and the only line the true left should accept is a complete withdrawl of US troops in Iraq.