News You think we should pull out of Iraq?

[denverdoc]

IMO both were a mistake. Iraq did not have an organized insurgency except insofar as the B'aath party could recollect. I may be wrong but that has not been the significant operating force. Also I disagree with Astronuc, Saddam didn't have to go. Certainly not at the expense of war; I recall Rush L. spouting out that Saddam was killing off his people at 30K/yr. Based on the Lancet report, death rate has only increased.

We tolerate crazies of every stripe, and my pet theory is that he first agreed to a pipeline deal, then reneged, something eerily similar occurred in Afghanistan. I believe its a tale of two pipelines.

This has nothing to do with democracy or repulsion, we helped overthrow in Haiti a democratically elected gpresident for a rabble of known paramilitary nuts, who have taken the country to chaos.


Never ever confuse foreign policy with the good of anybody or anything except US interests. Then it becomes much less quixotic. its not a fight for the repressed, or good, or any hard to quantify variable except our own survival. Any FP neds to have a healthy dose of such, but to pretend benevolence only adds to the victim mindset expressed up above and more frequently in congress--if only they the Iraqi's would do their part... Problem is we have np real understanding of the situation just as Great Britian did in 1920. So we consider them inscrutable, and evil. Old story. Blame the vctim.

 

[drankin]

It just seems that we are damned if we do something and damned if we don't. No matter how we go about it a large percentage of people are going to say we did it the wrong way. I'm even wondering if we shouldn't move towards becoming an isolationist country. Mind our own borders. Let the rest of the world fight out their own problems. Simplistic, I know, but often the simple answer is the best one.

 

[Mallignamius]

It just seems that we are damned if we do something and damned if we don't. No matter how we go about it a large percentage of people are going to say we did it the wrong way. I'm even wondering if we shouldn't move towards becoming an isolationist country. Mind our own borders. Let the rest of the world fight out their own problems. Simplistic, I know, but often the simple answer is the best one.

I remember seeing old news footage of people being asked about the wars in Europe just before WWII broke out. They were saying pretty much the same thing. "Let them fight their own wars."

Our isolation policy didn't last.

 

[denverdoc]

iraq had none either. we have created out of a thin air a whole lot of insurgecy! If you even buythe assumption that we went into set up democratic system, argument still fkawed,

 

[devil-fire]

It just seems that we are damned if we do something and damned if we don't. No matter how we go about it a large percentage of people are going to say we did it the wrong way. I'm even wondering if we shouldn't move towards becoming an isolationist country. Mind our own borders. Let the rest of the world fight out their own problems. Simplistic, I know, but often the simple answer is the best one.

there are many people in the middle east and south america would would consider this a godsend.

but american foreign policy is not about doing the 'right' thing or what is best for the world as a whole, it is about doing the most profitable thing for america. the chances of the usa taking up an isolationist policy and giving up the opportunity to extend national interests abroad in the next 50 years is extremely low.

 

[Anttech]

The Iraq war will be notable in history as the biggest military blunder by the US, may even eclipse the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan for the biggest military blunder in recorded history.

You may be right, but that statement is totally subjective, and un-defensible. Recorded History goes back 1000 of years, how can you compare the classical wars with modern ones?

Yes Iraq is a disaster, but is it a disaster for everyone?

The country is a mess, the people are in a worse position, even Bush is now a lame duck. The Neo-con dream is more powerful than ever however. We all live in fear of the next big terrorist attack, but the Oil is *safe* and our fear keeps us subdued and binds us together against our common enemy.

We probably will look back at this war as a turning point in world history, but I don't know what the future is going to bring. All I know is that there will be a "Super-power" reshuffle

 

[drankin]

there are many people in the middle east and south america would would consider this a godsend.

but american foreign policy is not about doing the 'right' thing or what is best for the world as a whole, it is about doing the most profitable thing for america. the chances of the usa taking up an isolationist policy and giving up the opportunity to extend national interests abroad in the next 50 years is extremely low.

All it takes is one determined administration to completely change that.

As far as a super power reshuffle, you are dreaming if you think that will happen in your lifetime.

 

[Anttech]

As far as a super power reshuffle, you are dreaming if you think that will happen in your lifetime.

I presume you are talking to me, why am I dreaming?

America isn't as powerful as it was prior to entering Iraq. Its political clought globally is dwindling. Its war machine has been stretched to its limit, in both domestic appetite and Man power. The EU is the biggest economic power in the world, India and China are racing to catch up. Russia is using its Energy stocks to start throwing its weight around again.

I should be alive for another 60 years, if you think America will be top of the pile (all on its own) in 60 years you are dreaming.

Quick History lesson, who owned all the trade routes in the world prior to ww1? Great Britain did, look at the UK now, a powerful rich country, but not the super power it was.

America however is lucky in the fact its a democracy, as it won't self-implode or anything drastic like that, it will just fall behind in key sectors. The Global Finance HQ has already moved out of New York to London. The thirst for Energy in the US is not helping either, it was the catalyst to the Iraq war, and the $/Barrel of Oil the US pays isn't sustainable. The housing market seems set to implode in the US right now, which will have global consequences. Yes this could be a short term thing, and the markets will probably recover, however the US is loosing ground in many many area's. Everyone else in the world wants some of the totally disproportional wealth that is in the US, and it is starting to flow away, GDP debt for example. The current Global balance of power just is not sustainable for 60 odd years (in my dreams )

All those things you take for granted, that good economy, clean environment, Jobs for the boys, cheap petrol, Global status, all stemmed from some very clever and manipulative political positioning after WW2. The HUGH gap that America managed to create between them and Europe is getting very small nowadays. Europe isn't the only player in this arena tho, China and India want into the club too, and they will get there. Just look at the IT services sector in India... It is destroying Jobs in the West, and will continue to do so until we have an equilibrium in place.

Regardless the fact of the matter is that History teaches us all world powers fall in the end. Military might or not... That includes the USA

 

[drankin]

I presume you are talking to me, why am I dreaming?

America isn't as powerful as it was prior to entering Iraq. Its political clought globally is dwindling. Its war machine has been stretched to its limit, in both domestic appetite and Man power. The EU is the biggest economic power in the world, India and China are racing to catch up. Russia is using its Energy stocks to start throwing its weight around again.

I should be alive for another 60 years, if you think America will be top of the pile (all on its own) in 60 years you are dreaming.

Quick History lesson, who owned all the trade routes in the world prior to ww1? Great Britain did, look at the UK now, a powerful rich country, but not the super power it was.

America however is lucky in the fact its a democracy, as it won't self-implode or anything drastic like that, it will just fall behind in key sectors. The Global Finance HQ has already moved out of New York to London. The thirst for Energy in the US is not helping either, it was the catalyst to the Iraq war, and the $/Barrel of Oil the US pays isn't sustainable. The housing market seems set to implode in the US right now, which will have global consequences. Yes this could be a short term thing, and the markets will probably recover, however the US is loosing ground in many many area's. Everyone else in the world wants some of the totally disproportional wealth that is in the US, and it is starting to flow away, GDP debt for example. The current Global balance of power just is not sustainable for 60 odd years (in my dreams )

All those things you take for granted, that good economy, clean environment, Jobs for the boys, cheap petrol, Global status, all stemmed from some very clever and manipulative political positioning after WW2. The HUGH gap that America managed to create between them and Europe is getting very small nowadays. Europe isn't the only player in this arena tho, China and India want into the club too, and they will get there. Just look at the IT services sector in India... It is destroying Jobs in the West, and will continue to do so until we have an equilibrium in place.

Regardless the fact of the matter is that History teaches us all world powers fall in the end. Military might or not... That includes the USA

Yep, just not in your lifetime.

 

[Anttech]

Yes what?

make a point, even an arguement...

 

[devil-fire]

All it takes is one determined administration to completely change that.

i think it would take a huge change in the culture and goals of the american government for that to happen...something like the green party taking the white house. anything short of that will be a vary slow process, requiring a lot of evolution

 

[Werg22]

So far we are from treating the real problem, no one has even mentioned it. The Israelo-Palestinian conflict encompasses all the Middle-East, and as long a reasonable solution for both camp isn't found, we cannot expect peace in Iraq, nor in any part of the region for that matter.

 

[Gib Z]

Little time, didn't read all posts before, quick opinion.

Let every country pull out except the US, who got us in this anyway. US should stay until the introduce a self sustaining governement that requires no outer help. Trained military, police etc etc.

 

[drankin]

i think it would take a huge change in the culture and goals of the american government for that to happen...something like the green party taking the white house. anything short of that will be a vary slow process, requiring a lot of evolution

Believe it or not but a lot of conservatives feel the same way. Right now Republicans want to keep us there but that is not necessarily a grassroots conservative desire. The Republican party is not altogether conservative anymore. Not sure what they are.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know what the US should do. It is because many people knew it was going to be a big mess out of which nobody would know how to get that a lot of people asked the US not to get involved back in 2003. So now is finger pointing time. It really would have been better not to have gone in, but now that the US is in there, I haven't gotten a clue of what should be done next, it really sounds like a lose-lose option.

I think the most significant, and dangerous, conclusion is that the US has shown the world where its military limits are ; in the same way as the USSR had shown where its limits were in Afghanistan. As such, a dangerous blow has been given to the political power that goes with military thread, and that shows in Iran. They really don't pee in their pants for the US army over there. I think this will be the historical conclusion of the Iraq fiasco: the US (and with it, the Western world) has lost its image of military suppremacy.
Of course, there are still nukes, but these are, let's face it, totally useless weapons. Using them would signify a final discredit.

 

[devil-fire]

I think this will be the historical conclusion of the Iraq fiasco: the US (and with it, the Western world) has lost its image of military suppremacy.

i disagree with this because there are many western countries not participating in iraq right now. also, the usa still has a vary good image of being able to blast things to bits, but we are living in a globalized world where many interests don't want to solve problems by blasting things to bits. i think it is more accurate to say the credibility of the usa to be able to effectively solve global issues has been reduced a lot by the iraq war. this may not sound bad, but its actually quite significant for the only global super power to not be able to solve global issues

 

[denverdoc]

Little time, didn't read all posts before, quick opinion.

Let every country pull out except the US, who got us in this anyway. US should stay until the introduce a self sustaining governement that requires no outer help. Trained military, police etc etc.

At the current rate of zero progress toward such a goal, and ever increasing resentment over the occupation, a waning base of support here for the entire exercise, and ever increasing difficulties finding fresh recruits, when exactly do you expect this to occur?

 

[Ki Man]

Surge is showing progrress already. does this mean its working or the insurgents have just gone underground until the surge ends