Last combat troops pulled out of Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter Jack21222
  • Start date
  • #26
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
Russ claims that Iraq people are better off now than they were during the pre-war period because GDP now is 5 times and the GDP is indirectly telling the better living standards.

However, my claim is that the GDP is high because the US is involved in the Iraq economy or Iraq is under the US occupation as I highlighted the US government efforts. Iraq people living standards and current GDP are not linked. It is hard to determine the current living standards of people relative to pre war standards. While, I agree Iraq will be better off eventually at some moment but not with the present instability.
The three parts you highlighted:
1. The Iraq economy is booming, according to the Bush administration.
2. The US government is involved in attracting small & medium businesses to Iraq
3. The US lifted sanctions on Iraq

The first has essentially nothing to do with the US. The second is a structural change that will be in effect even if the US leaves immediately (to what extent it works at all, but I digress). The third is a structural change that will remain after a US pullout.

Of the three, only one involves the US in any major way (the third). None involve the US injecting cash into the Iraqi economy. I'm really not sold on your point.
 
  • #27
378
2
The second is a structural change that will be in effect even if the US leaves immediately (to what extent it works at all, but I digress). The third is a structural change that will remain after a US pullout.

Of the three, only one involves the US in any major way (the third). None involve the US injecting cash into the Iraqi economy. I'm really not sold on your point.
I don't think we are on the same page thus I don't see the point in selling you apples when you are asking for oranges :biggrin: My argument has nothing to do with the affect on the Iraq economy due to the US pullout.
 
  • #28
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
My argument has nothing to do with the affect on the Iraq economy due to the US pullout.
That's why I'm asking for clarification, because what I understand of what you posted does rely quite heavily on that. (I have to ask for clarification a lot; don't take this personally.)
 
  • #29
2,123
79
The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
378
2
That's why I'm asking for clarification, because what I understand of what you posted does rely quite heavily on that.
For simplifying I would ask you to make an argument. I cannot clarify more than that US pullout and Iraq GDP-people living standards are two separate discussions. The GDP discussion was started when I posted Aziz article which had two opinions of him: America is leaving Iraq to wolves and second that Iraq people were better off during the pre-war period.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
For simplifying I would ask you to make an argument.
??

I have no argument, I'm merely trying to follow the thread.
 
  • #32
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops [Broken]
Sounds like these guys are light infantry and support troops, though I don't really know. If so, thats fine for fighting counter insurgents, but not the preferred force to oppose, say, the Iranians crossing the border in force and attempting to annex Basrah. In other words, all combat troops are not the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
172
1
The only significance IMO of the current withdrawal of troops is that it reduces the number of US troops in Iraq. As combat troops, they weren't in combat except as needed. The remaining troops can engage in combat "if need be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops [Broken]
Hey russ, this link basically states what I heard on the news the other night. Thanks, SW VandeCarr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Supercritical
I strongly suggest folks peruse the http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx [Broken] if you haven't already. It can answer a lot of questions brought up here, and will probably soon see an update in light of current events.

Sure, they're a think-tank, but I maintain that their index is probably the single best resource on Iraq (they have indices for Afghanistan and Pakistan as well). And you can read on wikipedia on how various media entities have attempted to place them politically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
I strongly suggest folks peruse the http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx [Broken]
Thanks. Per Brookings the Iraqi civilian fatality rate is about 10 per 100,000 now, which compares to a homicide rate of ~5 per 100,000 in the in US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Last combat troops pulled out of Iraq

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Top