I've been a staunch defender of the administration on Iraq. In fact I still think it was better to liberate people from a dictator than to wring hands while people were killed.

I still believe that the Administration got into Iraq with the best of intentions. The world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD, not just the US. The UN passed resolution after resolution and Hussein ignored them. People where freed from a dictator and Libya, was persuaded in no small part due to the invasion to give up its WMD programs. SO some good did come from this.

But that is being pissed away now. The US liberated more Muslims than any Arab country ever has, and what for? So they can slaughter each other wholesale? It's clear to me that the time to let Iraq stand or fall on it's own has come.

We've spent billions trying to help these people, and had it spit back in our faces. I think we've made Iraq as secure as we can. We've trained enough Police and Military it's time for Iraqis to step up. Clearly they are not willing to do so, since they rather blow each other up. So it's time to say we're leaving. It's time to begin removing units as Iraqi units take over. No more surges of US troops. If the Iraqi government wants a surge of security forces, they need to do it themselves.

If the world comes bitching and complaining that the US made a mess in Iraq, we can honestly now say that we cleaned up the mess we made, this continuing mess is the fault of Iraq and it's neighbors.

The Media loves to show Iraqis who keep telling us if we leave it will get better. I doubt that, but I'm not willing to spend anymore American lives for people who don't want our help. In the past liberated people were happy and willing to reconstruct their country. We helped the Germans and the Japanese become two of the most powerful economies in the World. Iraq has demonstrated they don't want that. So be it.

No more American lives for Iraqis, they aren't worth it.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): We helped the Germans and the Japanese become two of the most powerful economies in the World. Iraq has demonstrated they don't want that. So be it.

True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

Iraq is not a real country, no matter how many people come on after me to tell me otherwise.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): Iraq is not a real country, no matter how many people come on after me to tell me otherwise.

I assume your talking about Iraq being cobbled together by the British. This is very true. However, the same could be said about Germany, which has been cobbled together in various forms since the Treaty of Westphailia till World War II. Can you think of another European country thats borders have changes with more frequency than Germany? But that's a tangent we don't need to get into.

The point is that Europe made the most of the Marshall plan as did Japan. Iraq has been the recipient of billions of US money. And yet they blow up what has been fixed and built. The UAE is building artificial islands and huge towers, The Arab world is on a building spree with oil so high, so let them spend money on their Muslim brothers.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

Their people WANTED to rebuilt and improve their COUNTRY.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): Iraq is not a real country

Correct. Its people don't seem to have a sense of COUNTRY. They identify themselves by religious sects and clans and have a "caveman" mindset. "Me Shiite. You Sunni. Me kill you." As a whole, they don't give a shit about rebuilding a unified Iraq. It's a concept that's beyond their level comprehension.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I take exception with this last bit:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): No more American lives for Iraqis, they aren't worth it.

In my opinion, American lives are worth exactly the same as Iraqi lives, and if our soldiers are willing to chance sacrificing their own lives to save Iraqi lives, that's quite commendable. However, I don't think that continued US sacrifice is going to have much of an effect on Iraqi death tolls. We shouldn't withdraw because they're not worth saving, but because we really can't save them without a massive escalation in the American occupation.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): best of intentions

Regardless of what sentiment there was for going to war there should have been little doubt that this type of bloodbath would follow. After all as Derico has pointed out Iraq was not really a country rather something that the Brits put together when they got tired of playing in the sand.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): not just the US

Really? I'm not so sure that anyone else on the security conuncil felt this way. They may have concede that it was a possibility but didn't take it as gospel in the same way the Bush administration seemed to.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): We've spent billions trying to help these people

No doubt a few billion dollars will flow back to the US is the form of favorable contracts and for reconstruction and oil related deals.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): this continuing mess is the fault of Iraq and it's neighbors

Well until the invasion of Iraq Saddam kept the place locked down to the point that the neighbours stayed well the f*ck out if they knew what was good for them.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): No more American lives for Iraqis, they aren't worth it.

That's a pretty strong statement and frankly a little crude for my taste. You can't punish the helpless victims of this situation because certain elements in the country are stirring the pot.

In an ideal world the US would have gone in, dropped Saddam and gotten out cleanly. But how realistic was it to expect an Arab nation to embrace democracy without violence? Look around the region, I don't see another example, do you?

YOWza

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 2): I assume your talking about Iraq being cobbled together by the British. This is very true. However, the same could be said about Germany, which has been cobbled together in various forms since the Treaty of Westphailia till World War II

True, but the Germans and the rest of the modern nations of Europe had about 1000 years to get that right  

I'm not saying the Iraqis coudn't not be one country, however, we are still waaay to early in the 'let's get back at them' stage (the shiites to the sunnis), to even think they will settle down.

After all, it's only been four years. Yes, four years for troops being shot at every day is eternity, but in the scheme of history it's a blink. There's still lots of payback to be done there (and the US troops are just getting hit from all side now mostly because they are the formal police for the Iraqi government).

As it has been said before, and I actually will quote a former member of the US government, the US didn't just gain independence in 1776 and then people just went out and drank lots of liquor and built highways. There were years of warfare, followed by years of constitutional crises, followed by many popular uprisings and rebellions, ethnic and racial massacres, even civil war. The same for Argentina during it's first 50 years before it got it's act together around 1853.

I don't see how Iraq can be asked to do all that in 4 years. I'm not saying by this that the US should stay, but the simple fact is that it just can't be done. I'm not a graduate of history or military, not even an expert perhaps, but even I could see back when that there was no way Iraq would be a 21st century Germany.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 5): You can't punish the helpless victims of this situation because certain elements in the country are stirring the pot.

They are not helpless. Every family in Iraq has an AK-47. You think that car bombs are built out of thin air? People know whats going on. The only ones who can take control of their country are the people who live there. If they don't do it, are they really victims?

Quoting YOWza (Reply 5): But how realistic was it to expect an Arab nation to embrace democracy without violence? Look around the region, I don't see another example, do you?

So you're saying some people are suited to democracy? It's that a racist stereotype?

Quoting Derico (Reply 6): but the Germans and the rest of the modern nations of Europe had about 1000 years to get that right

1000 years? The last time Germany's borders changed was less than 20 years ago.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): Every family in Iraq has an AK-47

know that for fact do you?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): It's that a racist stereotype?

It was just an observation...

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 8): Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): Every family in Iraq has an AK-47 know that for fact do you?

Yes. I do.

On May 21, the front page of the New York Times announced that the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq would no longer permit Iraqi civilians to own "automatic weapons and heavy weapons." Starting June 15, it will be illegal in Iraq to own privately any of the following:

automatic firearms firing ammunition larger than 7.62mm; machine guns or crew-served weapons; anti-tank weapons; anti-aircraft weapons; indirect fire weapons; all armored vehicles or self-propelled weapons; and high explosives and explosive devices.

This ban is more permissive than the federal gun-control laws in the United States. In Iraq, it appears one may still own an AK-47, whereas in the United States ownership of an AK-47, or one of several other kinds of semiautomatic weapons, is against the law under the 1994 assault weapons ban.

http://www.slate.com/id/2083734/

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): Every family in Iraq has an AK-47

Care to validate that outrageous statement somehow?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): So you're saying some people are suited to democracy? It's that a racist stereotype?

It was not racist or a stereotype, as Kaddyuk pointed out it was simply an observation. I never said that democracy could not happen in the Arab world, simply that it has not happened. History is normally a good gauge fro future possibilities. Again that is with exception and maybe I'm too cynical and too much of a realist but I can not for the life of understand how the current furore could not have been predicted.

YOWza

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

And it also took a lot of time and money. Let's remember the Marshall plan.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): We've spent billions trying to help these people, and had it spit back in our faces

Sometimes by people who should know better than believe that people in the ME might not be ready for a little freedom. Witness this:

Quoting YOWza (Reply 5): But how realistic was it to expect an Arab nation to embrace democracy without violence? Look around the region, I don't see another example, do you?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3): Their people WANTED to rebuilt and improve their COUNTRY.

Frankly, their countries had been destroyed to such an extent, that it was about the ONLY thing they could do at the time. Perhaps the rebuilding process took their mind away from massive insurrections.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3): As a whole, they don't give a shit about rebuilding a unified Iraq.

I am not really certain about this. Would like to see studies or reports as to how many Iraqis actually feel like they are Iraqis before any other affiliations. After all, there should be very few people alive from the period that Iraq the country was created.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4): We shouldn't withdraw because they're not worth saving, but because we really can't save them without a massive escalation in the American occupation.

Sometimes in all our heated discussions on whether we should withdraw or not, the better question would be what would be a better option for Iraq. I mean, would anyone here doubt that a withdrawal at this stage would mean even MORE bloodshed in the area, not just in Iraq? If we all come together and simply realize that whatever happened, happened, and the only option we have is to make it all work, it would be a psychological defeat for those forces that want democracy (or a semblance of it) in the ME to fail.

There is a large, in fact huge, difference between something being permissable and something being prevalent. Just because hardcore pornography is legal in the US does not mean that every househould has a 500 DVD collection. Come on surely you can't be serious abou the AK47 comment. Granted a good portion of households may have AKs and the like but to blanket the whole of Iraq like that is ridiculous.

YOWza

[Edited 2007-04-23 20:05:37]

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 2): The Arab world is on a building spree with oil so high, so let them spend money on their Muslim brothers.

Be careful what you wish for. As the US starts pulling out, such unsavory nations as Iran and Saudi Arabia will start pulling in to provide that "help".

Despite the fact that I agree with you that it's good that Saddam is gone, and that the liberation of oppressed people is a noble goal, I'm starting to feel like the cost of the Iraq war is going to far outweigh the benefit, and that even getting into it at all was a bad idea. Billions of dollars have already been spent, and without an additional decade of work (and more billions of dollars), all we're going to get out of it is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran for dominance in the Middle East, to go along with a dead Saddam.

If the US pulls out, and the Iraqis really want to stand up and fight for a free Iraq, they will (it'll take time). If they don't, they won't, but in that case no amount of US support would make a difference.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): We helped the Germans and the Japanese become two of the most powerful economies in the World. Iraq has demonstrated they don't want that. So be it.

Keep in mind that Germany and Japan had been industrialized nations at the time of the war, and for all the bad things the dictators of that era did, they did modernize their countries pretty damn quickly and pretty damn effectively, with a fair amount of national pride to go along with it. Pretty much all Saddam built for Iraq were his palaces.

-Mir

Quoting Derico (Reply 6): the US didn't just gain independence in 1776 and then people just went out and drank lots of liquor and built highways. There were years of warfare, followed by years of constitutional crises, followed by many popular uprisings and rebellions, ethnic and racial massacres, even civil war.

More to the point, the US didn't have a 19th century superpower occupying the country and telling them how to do everything, They grew up in splendid isolation and created a successful modern democracy, at least in part because the founding fathers had both British and French democratic ideals as their foundation. Iraq has an occupying power, no concept of nationhood, and no understanding or appreciation of democratic ideals. I don't like UALPHLCS' reasons for pulling the plug, but his conclusion is right.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): Iraq is not a real country, no matter how many people come on after me to tell me otherwise.

The French and the League of Nations are to blame too.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 2): I assume your talking about Iraq being cobbled together by the British

See above

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): at least in part because the founding fathers had both British and French democratic ideals as their foundation

And Greek and Roman, maybe even more so.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): the US didn't have a 19th century superpower occupying the country and telling them how to do everything,

Yes, they did. Britain WAS a superpower.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): They grew up in splendid isolation

America was isolationists, but we fought many, many wars during our history, including wars against Muslim states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): the founding fathers had both British and French democratic

 
Neither France nor Britain had even an inkling of democracy in their system in 1776.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 14): and no understanding or appreciation of democratic ideals.

Just because a country has not lived under democracy does not mean they cannot apply it. Witness Japan prior to WWII.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16): Yes, they did. Britain WAS a superpower.

Yes but it was not the ONLY superpower. That is a huge factor.

YOWza

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): No more American lives for Iraqis, they aren't worth it.

An Iraqi live is at least as worth as an American , remember the US attacked Iraq ... now the US has to solve the problem and not leave like cowards !

For me a dead Iraqi is worse than an American Soldier as this families never wanted nor commenced a war ...

This war was just for Halliburton , Texaco etc , never Bush had on mind Freedom for Iraq , he just don´t cares see Saudi Arabia .

Konstantin

[Edited 2007-04-23 20:54:26]

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): If the world comes bitching and complaining that the US made a mess in Iraq, we can honestly now say that we cleaned up the mess we made, this continuing mess is the fault of Iraq and it's neighbors.

false , the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam hard to say but it´s the true ...

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16): Yes, they did. Britain WAS a superpower.

Read my post. Britain was a superpower, but it didn't occupy the US -- other than brief sojourn in Washington in 1812.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 16): Neither France nor Britain had even an inkling of democracy in their system in 1776.

Read a little history. Britain's Parliament predates 1776 by a few hundred years. Two of the most influential political philosophers -- Locke (British) and Rousseau (French) -- gave Jefferson et al a tremendous foundation in democratic principles -- they took those principles, added their own intepretation, and came up with the U.S. Constitution. Democracy has been an evolutionary process, probably starting with the Greeks, and the process continues. Unfortunately, it is largely alien to most of the Arab world, despite the west's attempts to ram it down their throats. Let them sort out their own affairs.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 20): but it didn't occupy the US

Then against WHOM did the US declare independence against?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 20): Britain's Parliament predates 1776 by a few hundred years.

Did they have direct votes for the parliament?

Remember also that the French were inspired by the US for their own revolution.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 18): An Iraqi live is at least as worth as an American , remember the US attacked Iraq ... now the US has to solve the problem and not leave like cowards !

Iraqis have shown that they are not interested in our help rebuilding their country. It is clear that American lives are more valuable than what the Iraqis want.

As to the second part of your remark, I'm a bit confused. Are we supposed to get of Iraq now as many in Europe and the Democrat party want us to do, or are we supposed ot stay until the job is done.

For my part I think we did the job we stated we would do. 1) Took down a brutal Dictator 2) searched and got the truth about WMD in Iraq 3) left a Democracy 4) left the government the tools they need to handle their own security.

Now Iraqis have to do it for themselves.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 19): false , the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam hard to say but it´s the true

I guess Germans had a better life under Hitler as well.

The German mark recovered from hyper inflation. Germans where put back to work. Germany prospered under Hitler. So apart from the secret police the total lack of freedom the killing of the mentally ill and the attempted genocide of a people Germans had a better life than they did in the 1920s. I guess that's alright then right?

I guess as a German you don't mind looking the other way as a dictator murders people so long as you have a good life? Is that what we are to understand from your statement?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): 1000 years? The last time Germany's borders changed was less than 20 years ago.

Yes, but the German people and culture exist for more than 1000 years. Germany is a homogenous group, everybody feels German, despite the regional differences between Bavaria and the North. The language is the same, religion is the same (the dispute between catholic and protestant was solved after the 30 years war in the 17th century, and is completely irrelevant today)

There is a theoretical discussion on "what is a state".

Usually, a state needs three elements: People, Force, and Land.

Germany has "German people", "Force" = police and adminstration, and land (is situated in the middle of Europe with clear borders).

Iraq, on the other hand, while having land (the borders aren't really disputed that much) and force (which is struggling to uphold power, nevertheless Iraq in principle has a working administration), has no people.

People means to have a population which agrees on wanting to live together, share the same culture and same values. This is NOT the case in Iraq. There are kurds, Shiites and Sunnites, who do not like each other, who do not share the same values, and who do not want to be inside the same state.

In that condition, without "people", a state can only work by either oppressing, or by having minority rules which guarantee autonomy.

You see this problem worldwide in every state where there is no homogenous group, even in rich industrial states: Spain has problems in Catalunia and Basque country, because in those regions, people feel not Spanish, but Basque and Catalan.

In Northern Ireland, the conflict exists between the catholic Irish people and the protestant groups. Also here, they do not feel as people.

In Belgium, the flamic and wallonic part (dutch and french speaking parts) have huge conflicts and virtually hate each other, too.

In Germany, no such problems exists. That is why Germany really recovered so fast after the war, and why the unification in 1990 was wanted from both sides, because both felt like Germans who wanted to remove the artificial border between the west and the east.

The only country in the world where the concept of "people" really does not exist is the USA. That is because the US have always been a country of immigration, which has the concept of integrating people from all of the world as Americans.

This concept CANNOT AND DOES NOT work in states with traditions that are several hundred or even thousand years old.

This is no criticism of the US, in fact, the US is a positive example on how people from different cultural backgrounds all can agree to become americans, despite existing problems by illegal immigration and racism which also exist in the US.

However, since the USA have this tremendous difference from virtual all other countries of the world in this respect, I think that is why Americans often fail when they are involved in international conflicts. That is because integrating and uniting groups which have hated each other for centuries is simply impossible in countries like Iraq. It works in the US, where Iranian and Israelian immigrants might live together peacefully. It does not work abroad. I think this is one of the reasons why Bush's strategy had to fail, as he did not bear in mind these risks.

Michael

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 22): As to the second part of your remark, I'm a bit confused. Are we supposed to get of Iraq now as many in Europe and the Democrat party want us to do, or are we supposed ot stay until the job is done.

On this I agree with the Republicans , America can not leave before the "Job" is done , but how they´re doing the "job" it will never work ... what they can´t do is leave now and say : Iraq solve your problem alone ...

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 22): I guess Germans had a better life under Hitler as well.

Well I don´t say Saddam was a good guy , he was a murder .
But America went to Iraq saying that the Iraqis would live better and have soon a democracy , etc .
See how it worked , this is worse than Vietnam for the US .

you can not compare the 2 WW with Iraq , after the WW in Germany was less violence . In Iraq die more people of violence than before the invasion , so Iraqis lived better with Saddam , not good but better .

The problem is that now it´s even worse than with Saddam .

Konstantin

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 18): For me a dead Iraqi is worse than an American Soldier as this families never wanted nor commenced a war ...

But what makes you think that every American solder wanted to go to war? Many of them are just following orders. Either way, a life is a life.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23): However, since the USA have this tremendous difference from virtual all other countries of the world in this respect, I think that is why Americans often fail when they are involved in international conflicts. That is because integrating and uniting groups which have hated each other for centuries is simply impossible in countries like Iraq. It works in the US, where Iranian and Israelian immigrants might live together peacefully. It does not work abroad. I think this is one of the reasons why Bush's strategy had to fail, as he did not bear in mind these risks.

Great point. The government needs to learn that not every country can adopt the same system of democracy that we are able to achieve.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 25): But what makes you think that every American soldier wanted to go to war? Many of them are just following orders. Either way, a life is a life.

Most soldiers wanted to go to war , to "serve" their country now it´s going wrong , yet nobody wants to go ..

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 19): false , the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam

"False." But I guess if you are stuck watching mainstream media, that might be true. Saying stupid things like that only highlights your ignorance. Hospitals, schools, markets are all being constructed while technology vastly improving daily. Iraq is far better than it was before.

All these deaths that you talk about that are a direct result of the US, do you seriously believe there were no deaths before? Hussain and his sons were far more sick and killed a gross amount of people.

[Edited 2007-04-23 22:28:45]

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 24): America can not leave before the "Job" is done , but how they´re doing the "job" it will never work ... what they can´t do is leave now and say : Iraq solve your problem alone ...

I disagree. I agreed with this assessment up until recently. However, I think our job has been completed. As I said in my post above, by all accounts the job we set out to do is done. If we are to accept that Iraq is in the midst of an undeclared civil war, then the US never said that mediating or peacekeeping between two waring factions was part of the mission. Our mission as we defined it in the beginning is completed.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 24): But America went to Iraq saying that the Iraqis would live better and have soon a democracy , etc . See how it worked , this is worse than Vietnam for the US .

Democracy, isn't an instant government. It isn't as easy to set up as a dictatorship. Yes, we promised the Iraqis a democracy. They have that now they held up the purple finger. How it works is up to them the US job is done.

As far as comparisons to Vietnam you need to look at a History book. 3000 some Americans have dies in Iraq in going on 5 years. In the 10 years of the Vietnam war 50,000 Americans died. On this pace, the US would lose 6000 Soldiers in the time it took to lose 50000 in Vietnam. Even in the simple numbers comparison the assertion is false. It is false in many many other was as well. Although there are some similarities as there are in all wars.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 24): you can not compare the 2 WW with Iraq , after the WW in Germany was less violence . In Iraq die more people of violence than before the invasion , so Iraqis lived better with Saddam , not good but better .

First you can compare World War II with Iraq. Just as you compare Vietnam with Iraq. I wasn't comparing the actual fighting of the two wars that is clearly different, but a valid comparison can and should be made between a dictators who have fascist philosophy. the Baath party is and was nothing more than the Nazi Party in Islamic terms.

So what your saying is that Saddam Hussein and his sons, as the leader of his nation, was perfectly within his rights to murder and kill and torture people, because its better than the people doing it to themselves.

So you can stand to see a dictator's representative in the UN while at home Uday was torturing people for kicks.

Your moral relativism is sad.

There is no difference in the violence perpetrated by Hussein and the insurgents. The difference is in the Iraqi people's ability to combat it. Under Hussein they had no chance. Now they are simply unwilling. If people are unwilling to help themselves and want to blame the liberator, than the liberator should leave, leave the solution up to the people.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): I still believe that the Administration got into Iraq with the best of intentions. The world thought Saddam Hussein had WMD, not just the US.

   Everyone that mattered saw the same exact evidence. We partially relied on foreign intelligence, so it's not just the U.S. that screwed up. We deserve some blame, but not all. Saddam was toying with the UN, and if he truly didn't have WMD like he kept saying , then all he had to do was simply to let the inspectors in and prove him right, and the rest of the world (and especially GWB), wrong. But no...he made his own stupid decision.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): It's clear to me that the time to let Iraq stand or fall on it's own has come.

   Yep. $hit or get off the pot, folks. Freedom ain't free...you have to work hard to earn and preserve it.

Quoting Derico (Reply 1): True, but Germany and Japan were REAL countries when they were rebuilt.

I can't speak for Japan during that last year, what I know is that the German people were fed up with the Nazis and the war, and especially the troops and generals. Really, that began on 20 July 1944, when the plot against Hitler failed. That was the beginning of the end. The Germans wanted the war to be over with, and move on. They, like the Japanese, are celebrating 62 years of peace, the longest in German history.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 29): what I know is that the German people were fed up with the Nazis and the war, and especially the troops and generals

Unfortunately, Iraq has NOT reached the level of violence and destruction that Japan and Germany went thru after WWII. There were several times were tens of thousands died during a single raid. Many cities were left in complete and utter ruin. Millions, not hundreds of thousands, of their citizens died.

Japan and Germany, plus the surrounding countries, were so utterly and completely in ruins, that IMHO, their immediate survival was more important than trying to get the 'occupiers' out. Perhaps, and I mean perhaps, if WWII had been conducted like current wars (with an attempt to minimize 'collateral damage'), their citizens would have had more of an incentive to remove the occupying forces.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 27): "False." But I guess if you are stuck watching mainstream media, that might be true. Saying stupid things like that only highlights your ignorance. Hospitals, schools, markets are all being constructed while technology vastly improving daily. Iraq is far better than it was before.

You´re kidding right ..?! Every day more than 100-120 Iraqis die ! The economy is devastated , the country is before a civil war , kids can´t go to school because of fear of bombs ...

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 28): So what your saying is that Saddam Hussein and his sons, as the leader of his nation, was perfectly within his rights to murder and kill and torture people, because its better than the people doing it to themselves.

I never said that ! Saddam was a terrible dictator ! But people lived better under him , it´s like this and nobody can negate it , under him never died 100-120 people a day .


The "reason" for the war was massive destruction arms , which where never found .

But the real reason was , the oil . Bush just don´t cares about Iraq , he produced a mess , now he has to save his ass and name .

A good example is Saudi Arabia , where womans can not drive a car not even marry without the permission of the father ,but this is an "allied" country .

Don´t you see how false this all is ?

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): But the real reason was , the oil . Bush just don´t cares about Iraq , he produced a mess , now he has to save his ass and name .

Couldn't agree more !

Alex!!!

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): But the real reason was , the oil

What about WMDs?   

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): I'm Begining To Change My Mind About Iraq

Wow, first it was TedTAce changing his position on gun ownership and now UALPHLCS is starting to see the light as well.

That being said, I think some misleading statements have been displayed here. ,

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 27): Hospitals, schools, markets are all being constructed while technology vastly improving daily.

I think a "re-" should prefix the word constructed. Isn't it possible the hospitals, schools, and markets you refer to are being constructed because we bombed them into oblivion in the first place? Or, is it your opinion that, prior to the great and powerful USofA arrived on our white horses, there were no hospitals, schools, or markets in Iraq?

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 3): As a whole, they don't give a shit about rebuilding a unified Iraq.

I don't think this generalization about Iraqi's is fair. How many Iraqi police recruits have we seen slaughtered over the past year or two just because they were in line at a recruitment facility or on a bus trying to get to one? Yet, each day, we see more of the same - Iraqi citizens attempting to become a part of the good guys. Granted, some are probably doing it for the money and the opportunity to have a job but at least they're making an effort against some pretty hellacious odds.

I'll be honest, I don't have a solution to the mess we've created although I am strongly leaning toward getting the hell out. What I do know is, sending more troops over is one thing we shouldn't be doing. Evidence has shown doing so has had no effect on the daily slaughters taking place there. If anything, it's led to an increase in the deaths. I think it was either the day of the V-Tech massacre or the day after that Baghdad saw close to 200 people killed in one day in a string of attacks. And we keep seeing daily reports of 20, 30, 40 Iraqi's (along with some members of the coalition force also) being killed on a regular basis. Hell, with his recent search for a War Czar (a position that has been turned down by numerous generals now), Bush himself has indirectly admitted he has no clue what to do. What's it say about a situation when the guy who got us into it is now looking for someone to take over it's command and get us the hell out of it?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 21): Then against WHOM did the US declare independence against?

I think I'm gonna go with France on this one  

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter): It's clear to me that the time to let Iraq stand or fall on it's own has come.

Ultimately, the people who live in a country determine and deserve the government they get, whether they choose to believe that or not. Other countries can help and influence from time to time, but in the final analysis it is what the people themselves are willing to do, or not do, in their own country, that determines the government they get.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13): the US starts pulling out, such unsavory nations as Iran and Saudi Arabia will start pulling in to provide that "help".

Very true, but, there is nothing that can be done about it, short of a full scale occupation of Iraq, with maybe 500k troops. Since the political will in America will not allow that, you may as well withdraw now - because the forces lined up against America aren't going anywhere, ever, and they have the cash and the crazies to make your experience in Iraq very unpleasant.

It's time to consider what Walter Cronkite said about Vietnam
But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

It's time for America to move on. Plenty of domestic problems need addressing, and there is no shame in having TRIED to establish democracy when so many other nations didn't even care if Saddam lived on forever...

Cairo

I regret getting into this discussion so late, but my unit is busy resetting from the deployment, and I haven't had much free time.

I am surely going to often people by giving my frank and honest opinion about the Iraqis, but when has that ever stopped me?

--------------------------------------

My assessment of the Iraqi people: The Iraqis are a deeply troubled people - with bitter rivalries amongst war sects, fueled by an intense urge to accumulate power. They endeavor in projects for purely selfish - and often destructive - ends.

While not a very religious people - compared to other Islamic nations - they will not hesitate to kill/cheat/steal/destroy in the name of religion.

They lack a sense of national unity and a sense of national destiny. Few leaders can agree whether to rebuild a road, let alone map out a long term national strategy for success. They can also be a very thankless, devious and untrustworthy people. The lack of respect for human life is alarming. The willingness to use civilians as shields is barbaric. The two-sided nature of the insurgency - one moment they're your friend, the next they are planting IEDs, is typical of their untrustworthy nature.

The Iraqis - whether Sunni/Shiite/Kurd/etc - are so intertwined that it may be impossible to separate them into individual groups. Also, the national resources are equally intertwined, and equitably dividing them seems just as impossible.

However, despite their vast shortcomings and failures, I saw the greatest progress amongst Iraqi youth. They were far more welcoming, far more willing to cooperate with American forces, far more peaceful and far more optimistic. Perhaps after decades of brutal rule and oppression, the adults no longer know how to be optimistic. Yet the children - free of much of that terror, and eyes opened to a more receptive world - may hold the key for a peaceful Iraqi future.

--------------------------------------

Either way, I went to Iraq to fight and win. Not to lose.

-UH60

UALPHLCS , Are you having a bad day ? .. I know how it feels .

Every time I get frustrated and feel like Harry Reid .. I just imagine our guys and gals crouching behind a wall on some blown out street somwhere in Iraq. Suddenly the strength to keep faith and be positive is easier... compared to the faith it takes to be in their shoes. Iraq will stabilize ,, it can not continue like this. Anyway , I can not lose faith now ... No way .... to much is at stake for my loved ones. Without peace in Iraq thier sacrifices are for nothing.


The world is so freaking insane !! The enemy can pull 30 people of a bus and shoot them in the back of the head and you dont here any outcry except for blaming the US.

This is the only shread of victory I will give to our enemy ,, they have managed to gain the sypmathy of the rest of the world. No act of barbaric violence gains them any blame.... That is one out standing Psyops program .. incredible.

Harry Reid =   

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36): But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

I would suggest a quick read about the 'Tet Offensive', where many believe that Mr. Cronkite was essential in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (not a misstatement).

And a an aside to Vietnam, I am fairly certain that you can find a great amount of people in Vietnam disagreeing that the best thing for the US to have done at that point was to depart. All we left behind was the freedom for wholesale murder in the region, not something those who were opposed to the war should be thankful about.

And as another point of reference, there was a negotiated peace, which allowed the North to rebuild and invade S. Vietnam in 1975. At that time, Congress (guess which party had the majority) denied the funds to defend S. Vietnam and we know where that history ends.

Where now 30 years later, Vietnam has started to progress to the point we left S. Vietnam in.

I was in support of the war from day 1, but, as you realized UAL, the war is most likely becoming a bigger blunder than anyone would have anticipated.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 39): All we left behind was the freedom for wholesale murder in the region, not something those who were opposed to the war should be thankful about.

Unfortunately, I believe that if we stayed longer as well, the people of S. Vietnam wouldn't be murdered, more troops would have been. It was beginning to become a war that we just couldn't win, whatever tactics we tried. Was leaving a right decision, yes. Would staying have been a better decision, yes. Leaving let us suffer no more deaths, but left the Vietnamese defenseless. Staying would have led to more deaths and left the Vietnamese defended. Anyway you look at it, there is bloodshed in each decision. The people probably knew that and wanted our boys not to be the ones getting killed.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): Every day more than 100-120 Iraqis die

How many were killed under Saddam and his sons? How were they killed?

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 34): I think a "re-" should prefix the word constructed

Maybe. Some were destroyed, but there are plenty of new ones going up that just did not exist before 2003.

Quoting YOWza (Reply 10): Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 7): So you're saying some people are suited to democracy? It's that a racist stereotype? It was not racist or a stereotype, as Kaddyuk pointed out it was simply an observation. I never said that democracy could not happen in the Arab world, simply that it has not happened. History is normally a good gauge fro future possibilities. Again that is with exception and maybe I'm too cynical and too much of a realist but I can not for the life of understand how the current furore could not have been predicted.

Well, democracy can be defined in so many myriad ways. Many people in the Arab world AND beyond think that America is everything but a properly functioning democracy, weighted to some criteria. - and they have good reason to think so.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 22): I guess Germans had a better life under Hitler as well. The German mark recovered from hyper inflation. Germans where put back to work. Germany prospered under Hitler. So apart from the secret police the total lack of freedom the killing of the mentally ill and the attempted genocide of a people Germans had a better life than they did in the 1920s. I guess that's alright then right?

Now you are being ridiculous. It reminds me of the current discussions in economics and pol. sc., where the question is scrutinized if authoritarianism is better for growth than democracy. In India, for instance, there is the wide belief that people would not surrender their freedom and their rights for a dictatorship and economic well-being. The East Asian example shows how authoritarianism can support growth and prosperity (--> efficiency, more maximum growth and output possible due to better management and no "interfering variable" as decision-making). Hence, to say that Germany was better off with Hitler is rude towards the Germans here. Moreover, everyone knows that Saddam is a brutal murderer, everyone wanted him to be removed, but who has the authority to do so? DId any Iraqi ask the US to invade? Why not invaving in Somalia/Kongo/Sudan? -----> No Oil! If you don't believe this: listen to the lyrics of the Asian Dub Foundation CD "TANK" - it is a piece of art

Quoting Cedars747 (Reply 32): Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): But the real reason was , the oil . Bush just don´t cares about Iraq , he produced a mess , now he has to save his ass and name . Couldn't agree more !

See above. Of course it was oil! Or was it altruism or humanity of our great president GWB   




In general, I think your comparison of a value of life of Iraqis v.v. the US soldiers is unfair. I won't start the discussion about Timothy Green and other soldiers who treat the people there as 10th class citizens.

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 40): It was beginning to become a war that we just couldn't win

"The impact of the Tet Offensive in the United States and on the Vietnam War remains a controversial subject. According to one view the Tet Offensive was an overwhelming victory for the United States which was mis-reported by the media as a defeat for the United States. Cited in support for this view is the well known report by Walter Cronkite, The famous Eddie Adams's photograph as well as editorials in major newspapers. Television reporting is also credited for bringing the horror of war into the living rooms of the United States. It is widely believed that the media portrayal then caused the public to turn against the war. This view was expressed by Gen. Westmoreland in his memoirs "A Soldier Reports" and is held by many in the military and some political conservatives in the United States."

The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. The Viet Cong's operational forces were effectively crippled by the Offensive. Many Viet Cong who had been operating under cover in the cities of South Vietnam revealed themselves during the Offensive and were killed or captured. The organization was preserved for propaganda purposes, but in practical terms the Viet Cong were finished.

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

This is how you can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and we can thank uncle Walter for this as well.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37): Either way, I went to Iraq to fight and win. Not to lose.

At this point man I think you guy won. You all won a while ago. As previously mentioned our stated goal in Iraq where to:

Topple Saddam Hussein.   
Enforce UN resolutions and check for WMD   
Create a sovereign democracy in Iraq   
Train Iraqi Military and Police   

Ok it's Miller time for you guys now.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 38): The enemy can pull 30 people of a bus and shoot them in the back of the head and you dont here any outcry except for blaming the US.

Actually the bad day came for me when they killed 150 people in a couple of massive car bombs, a few days before the VA Tech massacre. That took time to work out. It was then I got sick and tired of caring what happened to the Iraqis anymore. I care more about what happens to Americans. Believe me no one was more pro-Iraq policy than me. I was behind the surge. I was happy for the Iraqi people when they voted, I hoped they could become a great place again. But it's clear to me now that there is no civilized person left in the cradle of civilization. Not when you take out a bridge with a massive truck bomb. My patience and sympathy have run out.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 39): I would suggest a quick read about the 'Tet Offensive', where many believe that Mr. Cronkite was essential in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (not a misstatement).

Historical note: you are absolutely correct AndesSMF. The Tet Offensive was a devastating defeat for the North. The Viet Cong guerrillas were practically wiped out. It was a tactical victory for the US but the Media and specifically Cronkite made it a strategic loss.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): But people lived better under him , it?s like this and nobody can negate it , under him never died 100-120 people a day .

Sunnis lived better under him. Everyone else the vast majority of Iraq it was worse. Ten of thousands where killed by poison gas alone in one campaign. So don't try to draw any moral equivalence between the US Military and Saddam Hussein. You're defending a fascist dictator if you do.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 42): Hence, to say that Germany was better off with Hitler is rude towards the Germans here. Moreover, everyone knows that Saddam is a brutal murderer, everyone wanted him to be removed, but who has the authority to do so? DId any Iraqi ask the US to invade? Why not invaving in Somalia/Kongo/Sudan? -----> No Oil!

I didn't say Germany was better off with Hitler. I was responding to this ludicrous statement:

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 19): the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam hard to say but it?s the true ...

Because LHStarAlliance is German I thought the historical reference would hit home.

You ask who had the authority to remove Saddam Hussein. The UN passed resolutions citing consequences if he failed to cooperate. The US invasion got it's authority from the UN. It's revisionist history to ignore those resolutions.

As for Somalia That was a different administration. But we DID invade there and tried to establish a functioning government. The US is supporting the Ethiopians as they help stabilize that country now. Kongo does have oil BTW, and it is another administration. Sudan has Oil BTW a lot of it and the Chinese are helping to extract it which is why they feel they can ignore the UN. The administration is leading the way trying to get some kind of force in Sudan. But they are following Hussein's example and ignoring the UN. Which probably wouldn't have happened if the UN showed a bit of backbone in the past.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 45): The US invasion got it's authority from the UN.

Could you please cite me the relevant UN resolution? "Serious consequences" is no automatism for a military attack. Never did the UN authorize an US-led invasion, also not in the retrospective. These are the facts! You can also check historical documents about the debates, which, according to the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention of Treaties, are valid sources of law - yes, these documents, that have legal status, reveal the opposition of the other UNSC Members.

Sometimes it is nice to check legal documents and facts, otherwise the coherence of your argument is impaired.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 45): Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 19): the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam hard to say but it?s the true ... Because LHStarAlliance is German I thought the historical reference would hit home.

His statement is not really ludicrous. Anyways, only the Iraqis can answer this question, and you are everything but a spokesperson for them

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 46): Anyways, only the Iraqis can answer this question, and you are everything but a spokesperson for them

Then you must admit that any non-Iraqi that claims that Iraqis life is better/worse now than under Saddam has no basis to form that opinion.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 47): Then you must admit that any non-Iraqi that claims that Iraqis life is better/worse now than under Saddam has no basis to form that opinion.

Of course you and anyone can form and express an opinion. However, the real persons to ANSWER the question is ideally the sum of all opinions of Iraqis (N). If someone is good in opinion research, he would take a representative sample n and determine. It's like we speak on behalf of the Iraqis  

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

The rest can be found here with the PDF of the UN resolutions in full:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 46): Anyways, only the Iraqis can answer this question, and you are everything but a spokesperson for them

No I'm not an Iraqi spokesman. But Thomas Jefferson spoke for all men in the Declaration of Independence, was his assessment invalid because he was literally speaking only about White male landowners? I think people can recognize tyranny when they see it and living under it is not better than living through a civil war. Saying that living under a peaceful tyranny is better than war is a cop out for cowards.