Iraq doesn't want us there...

[Sky Warrior Bob]

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D837VIT00_story

Basically, a poll was done & more than half of the Iraq population thinks it'd be better off if we left. At least Blair's interpretation says the new Iraq government can ask us to leave, but then others in the Bush said that was a no-no.

Well anyway, discuss as you will.

SWB

[Squishy Cheeks]

Gee I figured them shooting at us was the first clue that they didn't want us there. I know I interpret someone shooting at me, to mean they don't want me there.

[Toastburner B]

Of course they want us to leave. Heck, I want us to leave, too. No one likes another country being in charge of their country.

Unfortunately, we have to stay, at least for the time being.

Serious, we leave now, the entire place will erupt. You think its bad now, imagine what would happen if we pulled out. Everyone with a group of thugs would try to become the leader. You'd get another Saddam in power, or someone worse.

Yes, it's a mess. It's also our mess, so we have to hang around to clean it up. We take off now, everything falls apart. The Interrim Government isn't strong enough to support itself yet, in my opinion.

So, yeah. Leave as soon as we can without there being a power vacuum when we leave.

[Tanxadillo]

We were never even supposed to be there in the first place. You all probably have heard of the "Oil" Theory.

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

Of course we have. #1 law of Gulf War II discussion: Once the war is mentioned, it takes less than five posts (or lines in a chat room) for someone to scream or insinuate that it was all about the oil.

Personally, if most of Iraq doesn't want us there, we should go after autononmy is given. Hopefully Iraq's new government will be able to stand on its own two feet, but ...

[Viper Daimao]

i know i've heard of the stupid oil theory. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=2&u=/ap/20040608/ap_on_re_eu/iraq_oil_2) of course im not stupid, so i never believed it.


of course the iraqis dont want us there(though i dont believe that poll counted Kurds), however, it is nessassary. Especially given this (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040615-055649-4707r.htm). Luckily the Iraqi Prime minister has said that he wants us to stay until they can handle all security themselves, which seems to be happening at an increasing rate. I mean hell, we still have troops in Germany and other countries in Europe. (of course they dont want us to leave since our soldiers provide such a boost to their local economy)


from Andrew Sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com)

SILVER LININGS? Hard to find - but they do exist. 63 percent are happy to have an interim Iraqi government after June 30; 51 percent feel "very safe" in their neighborhoods; 64 percent say that the conflicts in Fallujah and Karbala have made Iraq more unified; 51 percent are now more interested in joining the Iraqi security forces than they were three months ago; 87 percent believe that the Iraqi security forces will be capable of keeping order without the help of the coalition forces. Abu Ghraib didn't have much of an impact. Most Iraqis say that the abuses are what they expect from Americans (54 percent believe all Americans are like Lynndie England). But the fundamental reason that U.S. forces are opposed is because they are viewed as an occupation, not because of their conduct. Most believe that the violence is a function of a collapse in respect for the Coalition forces and a function of external meddling (which gets it roughly right). The obvious conclusion is that we have lost the window of opportunity to use the good will gained from the ouster of Saddam to leverage a pro-American democracy in non-Kurdish Iraq. But a democracy is still possible, and it's hard to think of a more rational way forward than the one now proposed. The task now is to achieve some kind of workable pluralist, non-Islamist government that will not be a major anti-American force in the region. That's much better than leaving Saddam in power; but it's far less than we might once have hoped for. Maybe in a decade or so, we'll see the real fruits of this noble, flawed experiment. I'm still hoping.

[Toastburner B]

of course the iraqis dont want us there, however, it is nessassary. Especially given this (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040615-055649-4707r.htm).

Cripes almighty! :eek: Do you know if that's been confirmed or not? That's the first I heard about that.

sheesh...thats all we need, another Iraq-Iran war...

[Viper Daimao]

Only source has been a Saudi paper. and of course Iran denies it.

[The Tortured one]

Viper, I liked your post, and for the record I am pro-war on terror, but four battalions?! that's less then 2000 men! what are they gonna do, throw rocks at our tanks?

I just found it amusing that my military college can mass more troops than the entire state of Iran.

that'd make as much sense as Canada invading the U.S.

[Feuermachtspass]

I don't think that Iraq is ready for a democracy. Democracy is all well and good here in America, but that doesn't mean it will work elsewhere. I mean, look at Europe. They may have become "democracies" but in reality, they have achieved only socialism. In a Democracy, the majority rules. In Europe, the majority gives all of its money to subsidized programs and the poor, so the minority rules. Europe isn't really any more ready for democracy than Iraq.

Look at what happened after WWI. Kaiser Wilhelm was no longer in power, and they set up the Weimar Republic. Which then degenerated into the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. I think that making Iraq into a democracy will end up similarly: with a new dictator.

[Viper Daimao]

how do you be ready for democracy? How does a man learn how do handle freedom without tasting it? What are they ready for? Monarchism is immoral. dictatorism is immoral. Communism is especially immoral. of all the forums of govt, democracy is the most moral/least immoral. I believe it was Churchill whosaid "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others..."

of course we're getting ahead of ourselves. the fact is the elections arent till 2005.

[Raerlynn]

Viper, I liked your post, and for the record I am pro-war on terror, but four battalions?! that's less then 2000 men! what are they gonna do, throw rocks at our tanks?

I just found it amusing that my military college can mass more troops than the entire state of Iran.

that'd make as much sense as Canada invading the U.S.

*COUGHCOUGH*Guerrila Tactics*COUGHCOUGH*Terrorist Attacks*COUGHCOUGH*

So yeah, about 2000 people, and if trained properly, they CAN take a country. It's just a matter of applying pressure, at the right place at the right time.

[dementedmongoose]

Look, the Iraqis could govern themselves, but only if we pull out. Not just "pop were gone" we'd have to do it slowly or else they'd collapse. This war started going downhill as soon as we ousted Saddam. before then, we were raking in Iraqi love. We captured Saddam, they wantd him, we wouldn't hand him over. Now Abdul ibn Iraqi hates every Joe Schmoe American. I say we kill saddam, and hand over his head. cut the rest of him up, and rain down his parts all over France. They claim we're "the worst thing to happen to the world" the worst thing to happen would be if Saddam had tried to go Hitler.

[Otaku Son]

*COUGHCOUGH*Guerrila Tactics*COUGHCOUGH*Terrorist Attacks*COUGHCOUGH*

So yeah, about 2000 people, and if trained properly, they CAN take a country. It's just a matter of applying pressure, at the right place at the right time.
Unfortunately, Iraqis can't shoot worth a damn. They spray their fire and hope to hit something. The heavy artillery are the al-Queda.

[Muffin Mage]

Of course, Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't want us here.

Religious fanaticism is not good if you aren't what the religious fanatics like.

As to the topic at hand, I think that Iraq has gotten a France complex- glad for the liberators, but angry at the foreign defense helpers.

[JoeCB]

just so you know 4 battalions = 2800-3200 = 1 regement. roughly speaking.

and that mant trained trrops and do a lot of damage to civialns and unprepaired goverment foces. They couldnet take Iraq, but they could make Iran a bit bigger.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Unfortunately, Iraqis can't shoot worth a damn. They spray their fire and hope to hit something. The heavy artillery are the al-Queda.

But they're dang swell at making those car bombs, aren't they? Look, don't underestimate the insurgents completely. Sure, they're only killing maybe a few of our troops a week, but it isn't like we're totally casualty free.

Also, the insurgents aren't the only people with a ammo problem...

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/8858013.htm

Sky Warrior Bob

[Fifthfiend]

Unfortunately, Iraqis can't shoot worth a damn. They spray their fire and hope to hit something. The heavy artillery are the al-Queda.

By the by, is there any solid proof of AQ involvement in Iraq/info on how involved they are? So far all I've heard is bald assertions from admin officials, which frankly doesn't blow my skirt up. I think there was some kind of letter they said was from Zarqawi, I don't know how well substantiated that was.

There was a WashPo story back in April where the intel head of the 1st ID said something like 2% of fighters in Iraq are foreign, which is about the only thing resembling a solid number I've seen to that effect. The guy didn't specify Al Quaeda, either, so how many of them are part of that number I've not the least idea.

f there's better information out there, I'd like to know.

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

One point on the poll -- link to the full text here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217741/site/newsweek/), by the by -- I seriously question how random a sample they're going to get in Iraq. At the beginning, the report notes that polling was done in Baghdad, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah, and Baqubah -- it's certainly reasonable to assume that opinions might skew differently in, say, Najaf. The pollsters also note that refusals to take the poll were the highest they've seen yet (though no numbers on how many), so self-selection bias is bound to be a factor.

I'm hesitant to guess too much on which way this would have skewed answers... people in Fallujah would be bound to feel less safe, I guess, but maybe people in Najaf all think Sadr should just fuck right off. Grain of salt on all of it, is all I'm trying to get at.

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

Also, the insurgents aren't the only people with a ammo problem...

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldl...ion/8858013.htm

It's good for the economy?

[Sky Warrior Bob]

I remember reading a story eariler on, which stated that the insurgents didn't like Al Queda. Of course, doubtless that was based more on word of mouth than any solid facts.

At very least, I suspect that even if the insurgents don't agree 100% with Al Queda's goals, I'm sure they don't mind the help. Enemy of my enemy is my friend thinking, and all that. Still, once all is said & done, depending on the direction this war goes, Al Queda & the insurgents could always get on each other's bad side.

Plus, you're right not to lump all the foreign fighters all together, as back towards the begining of their involvement, I did read a report on how in sometimes it was a case by case basis, and there was no evidence of Al Queda involvement.

And I *WOULD* show you these articles too, but I can't find them, so you'll sadly have to take my word on this.

Sky Warrior Bob

[Omega Mage Zero]

how do you be ready for democracy? How does a man learn how do handle freedom without tasting it? What are they ready for? Monarchism is immoral. dictatorism is immoral. Communism is especially immoral. of all the forums of govt, democracy is the most moral/least immoral. I believe it was Churchill whosaid "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others..."

of course we're getting ahead of ourselves. the fact is the elections arent till 2005.

You don't prepare a country for democracy by invading and occupying it. There were plenty of people in Iraq that were happy with Saddam, and many more who were at least willing to live with him. Iraqis had more freedom under him than many other countries in the region. Saddam didn't try to control every aspect of their lives like the Ayatollas of Iran or the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia do. Saddam actually kept AQ out of Iraq, the US has failed to do that.

Before someone jumps all over me, let me say that I agree that Hussein was a brutal dictator. He started wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He murdered and tortured his enemies, he oppressed and brutalized entire populations of Iraqis(the Shiites, the Kurds).

But...he was contained. America had him hemmed in and basically impotent. The northern third of the country(the Kurdish area) was under our control. His military was unable to rebuild after the first Persian Gulf War to be a threat to his neighbors. UN inspectors were touring the country. About every other year we carried out air strikes to keep him in line.

Now, were Iraqis thronging the streets begging America to come help them? No, most Iraqis hated the US because of the sanctions. We had some Iraqi exiles telling the admin what they wanted to hear to justify the invasion. Let's try to think back and remember the reasons given for the war. WMDs? They didn't have them anymore. Though Cheney STILL says they might turn up. The 9/11 Attacks? Absolutely no connection, Osama and Saddam hated each other.

As for oil; no I don't believe the idea was ever to go there and actually sieze it. One of the unofficial goals of the war was to install a America-friendly country there sitting on the second-largest reserves in the world. Then they would give special consideration to American companies and interests. I don't understand how the "stupid oil theory" is so stupid.

So what's left? Democracy? The good of the Iraqi people? How many Iraqis are dead now that wouldn't have been if we hadn't invaded? Over ten thousand. Hasn't been much to their benefit has it?

Consider this, what would have been the better situation? A contained Saddam? Or this sucking black hole of chaos that breeds hatred throughout the Muslim world and makes us look like fumbling imperialists to the rest?

No the Iraqis don't want us there. They didn't want us there before the war, they don't want us there now, and they won't come to America in the future and thank us.

[AntiGnostic]

Monarchism is immoral.



Not to be critical, but how is Morachism immoral? As many evils that have happened under Monarchies have happened under democracies. We all remember the French revoulution and it's aftermath.

Anyway, I think that the Iraqis are happy to be liberated. They just don't want us sticking around. Much like the French after WWII, they aren't very grateful.

So, yes, we should hand over power and get out quick. But I still think that Democracy won't hold over there...

We'll just have to wait and see, and work for a better future. As long as there's a new tommorrow, then their's always hope :D

[cruelty13]

I mean, look at Europe. They may have become "democracies" but in reality, they have achieved only socialism. In a Democracy, the majority rules.

Tell me, have you ever even been to Europe. Socialism is a) either communism or b) Social democracy. There is a difference. Besides. Europe consists of twenty something countries. How can you say that there isn't any democracy here? And is Americas democracy all it's said to be. Do you vote the laws your selves, or do you elect people to vote for them. In that case it's no better then European democracies. Exept your president has more power. Our countries (Estonia) government was organized like yours between 1920-39.

Monarchism is immoral. dictatorism is immoral. Communism is especially immoral.

First of all, which kind of monarchism do you mean. I mean there is a whole variety of them. There is constitutional monarchy, absoulute monarchy, feudalism and centralized monarchy. These days, there is only constitutional monarchy, and how is that immoral. A family living on taxes. if you ask me it's a bit better then demaocracy, because it gives the people a sense of natonalizm (not in a bad way). Our country for example has a president and no one really likes him. Nor his wife.
Dictatorism is immoral when the dictator cares only for making things run in a way that suports and is good for him. But if he really does make living better for the people, then how is it immoral.

As for communism, you can't really say it's immoral, unless you think that people being equal is immoral. It's baddly run Communistic nations, that give communism a bad name. If a nation could actually succeed to make all people equivelent, without making rich poor, but by doing the opposite, then how is it immoral?

A few notes on the real subject. Our nation also went to Iraq and I don't see any point in the war what so ever. I agree with Omega Mage Zero on this matter as he said

So what's left? Democracy? The good of the Iraqi people? How many Iraqis are dead now that wouldn't have been if we hadn't invaded? Over ten thousand. Hasn't been much to their benefit has it?

[Viper Daimao]

any monarchy is immoral, unless you're like england and the monarchy is only a figure head who doesnt have any power. an argument could be made for constitutional monarchy, so thats more of an inbetween.

a dictator may be benevolent and make the country better, but the concept of dictatorship is immoral. just like with monarchism, you have a single person, unelected who has power over the people. they have no control over their govt.

Badly run communist nations? you mean, every communist nation?. yes, being equal is immoral. not the equality we have, thats equality of opportunity. communism is equality of condition, you are not free to become rich, or great, or do what you want. there is no way to make everyone rich. so your talk of making all people equivelent without making rich poor is fantasy. communism destroys wealth, and crushes human spirit. it is perhaps the most immoral of all the forums of govt because of that.

now back to iraq not being ready for democracy. Im not sure what your other alternatives are, but your premise is wrong. from Amir Taheri (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5404) who just got back from Iraq.
Nor should one believe the claims of self-styled experts that the Iraqis are not ready for freedom. During the past 10 months elections have been held in 37 municipalities. In each case victory went to the moderate, liberal and secular candidates. The former Ba'athists, appearing under fresh labels, failed to win a single seat. Hardline Islamist groups collected 1% to 3% of the vote.

[LordTobias]

All I have to say on the types of government is this: Look at the differences of nations involved in World War I and World War II. See the differences? See which ones attacked other nations? See which ones showed the lowest they could go?

Anyway, that was just a sidebar. My opinion on this matter is that we probably should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, although given that there might have been a threat of weapons (which has been disproven, but hey, it was a potential threat at first) and the fact that we can establish greater oil trade routes definitely does weigh on my mind.

Should we have gone into Iraq? Probably. Should we still be there? Hell no. Why are we there? Look at the numbers. How many us NON-military citizens (or former citizens for that matter) have been killed? That, to me, really spells "Get the frig out of the country as soon as you can."

I say to hell with the Iraqis and their government. They're senseless animals who kill for no reason. Quite frankly, I think we should turn the entire goddamned place into a parking lot. Make those that are left living walking glowsticks, the US hating bastards.

But yeah, the point is that we shouldn't be there. We have reason to be there anymore. Oh, and if anyone wasn't aware: The potential passing of the draft (yeah, the thing where you get selected to be put in the military and if you say no they lock you up thing) has been partially spawned from this Iraqi nonsense.

From what I read (sorry, I have no article links), US Congress (bunch've drunk assholes who think they're gods) is trying to, in a nutshell, pass the draft with as little publicity as possible. I'm sure most of you HAVE heard of it by this point though, as it's been going on for at least close to 6 months now. Oh yeah, the reason is so that we have "an inexhaustable amount of men for the war on terror." What war on terror? Killing a bunch of people who don't want us in their countries and would sooner kill us in the street, cut our bodies into little pieces, and put them in a big glass display case? I guess that's congress' version of War on Terror.

Anyway...yeah. We need to leave Iraq. Quickly.

(On a quick side note: A regiment originally conisted of roughly 2,000 men. So, that 2,800-3,200 number was a bit off, by close to 50%.)

Moral of the story: Leave the world that hates you alone, or conquer the entire damn thing. ^_^

G'day.

[Viper Daimao]

hah, yeah the congress is trying to pass the draft and iraqi's are bunch of animals.
yeah, we've done (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=3991) the whole draft discussion (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=116689&postcount=9) and anyone who thinks the draft is comming back either doesnt know anything about it, or is being intellectually dishonest.

I cant respect anyone who says leave iraq now and leave them to civil war, or foreign invasion. thats you know, kinda the opposite of what were set out to accomplish.

To underscore that point that Iraqi's are not all bloodthirsty animals, let me point out how much of the violence Al Qaeda and foreign fighters are behind. Iraqi blogger (http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/archives/2004_06_01_hammorabi_archive.html#1087935421458806 92) Hammorabi's breakdown of the the foreign fighters killed in one US strike on Fallujah underscores the point:
Nationality Number
Saudi 5
Somalia 2
Emirates 1
Yemen 1
Morocco 1
Algeria 1
Syria 1
Libya 1
Kurdistan 1
China 1
Mauritania 1

[LordTobias]

I can see your point very clearly, and don't necessarily disagree with your view points, but I still see it as this: I would not want to help a group of men who wished for no more than a horrible, agonizing death upon me. Based on that (and practically that alone) I think we should leave. Or decrease our numbers further, in the least. The sooner our men get out of there, the better off we are. I mean...look at what happened last time we helped out Iraq (Against the Soviets in the 80s. ) What'd they do? Used it against us. They will only do the same with this.

And, yes, I do not believe the draft will get passed, but off the wall, nearly impossible things have happened. Sitting around and doing nothing about it could leave a world of surprises for you. (I would further mention that politicians care only for their large paychecks, royalties, and prestige. Not the constituants that they "work for." )

There's me two pennies.

[Viper Daimao]

Whatever happened to us and Iraq before the invasion is totally different than now. Iraq before the invasion = Saddam Hussein, and nothing else.

as to leaving, you are looking at in a very skewed way. We are not helping a group of men wanting to kill us, we are destroying them. Just look at all the recent violence this week. the timing obviously shows you were are on the right track. the terrorists, foreign fighters and saddam loyalists are trying everything they can to stop us from turning over power to the Iraqis themselves.
try to think about what you are saying in a different light. say someone has broken into your home or something and you call the cops, but the cops refuse to come because the people in the house across the street hate the cops and will shoot at the cops.

[LordTobias]

The cops practically do that, anyway. Besides, the US soldiers are not the police of the world. I do think we've done as much as we can, and our presence only further provides malignant feeling and more death.

I think we're taking too long in trying to establish a democracy over there. Not all people are ready for it. That highly includes the Iraqis, I think. Some people are more comfortable with a dictatorship. I think they're nuts, but, hey, that's just me. Also, most (not all, but most) of the people in Iraq really hate us. Don't get me wrong, I've seen inverviews with some (mainly the government and police forces) Iraqis who said they like our presence because it provides them with more opportunities. However, that's only a few. I think it's just about time to get our troops out of that country and bring them home. Not standing around waiting for another car bomb to kill a few more good men.

I would just like to note that yes, it is necessary for at least some US troops to stay, but not as many as there are. Hopefully within a short amount of time we'll be out of there. (The date set by the UN was June 30th, if I am not mistaken. Hopefully the US will hold true to that and get our troops out....)

[Starbuck_II]

With Saddam in a Unfair biased Trial, I don't see Democracy coming to Iraq anytime soon.
Look if you think the court case us fair or unbaised you are living under a rock.
Baised: The judge and all the jury are people he opposed. Victims make poor unbaised people, no?
Fair: He is not being looked at as inocent, as Fox News says," he doesn't have a chance but might as well make try."
That was Fox News the "fair and Balanced" News lol (yeah right) channel. So as you can see Saddam is not being fairly tried.

If Saddam won, do you really think America/Bush would let him get away without punishment? No, we own all the power there.

Secondly, Saddam should be tried in the Hague. A International Court where less unfair/bias would happen. Safer for lawyers and stuff too.


try to think about what you are saying in a different light. say someone has broken into your home or something and you call the cops, but the cops refuse to come because the people in the house across the street hate the cops and will shoot at the cops.

You in a Black Neighborhood? No joke, I know a few ones like that. The cops don't come because its too dangerous.

As you can see Viper: not all Monarchies, Communist, and Dictators people want American Democracy.
After all, no republicans/conservatives got votes in Iraq elections you posted just liberals :) JK

[Christopher]

Going back to the system of government thing, I believe there are many possibilities and if the people are relatively happy and prosperous, let them be. I do think dictatorships are wrong simply for the potential for someone anywhere along the line to be corrupt with no checks.

Communism, I believe is wrong. Not just failed communist states, but communism's ideal. Very few countries if any have actually excercised ideal communism in every detail, true, but it's still wrong. Communism in its purest form calls for no religion. Most communist societies replace that with one state religion (Taoism in China for example) But you have a fundamental problem, whether it's a religion or lack thereof, that no one person's religion should be any more valid than another's. Communism is mostly wrong for the fact that it takes away the freedom of choice. No freedom of speach since that's a danger to the society, the state tells you what job you'll work, based on where you're needed. You can not gain money or grow. You can't even choose to leave the system if you disagree with it. Citizens in a communist country stagnate because they are prohibited from trying to better themselves. I do think that poor people should be taken care of, however not everyone is equal. Their worth as people is equal, and their rights should be, but some people are better at some things, and some people simply have more willpower and desire to make something of themselves. Ideally, then I would think that to meet the needs of both sides, I would say, The government is responsible for the survival of its citizens. It always has been ever since we ceded power to governments in prehistoric times. But success is up to the individual.

I think Utopia would have two major ideals:

1)Respect the right of everyone else to think, believe, and do what they want (so long as doing does not harm someone else)

2)Respect life. Killing is a serious evil and in today's world people are desensitized to it.

[Peo]

I have one comment: The Muslims will forever hate the U.S., and will always be there to fight us, if we dont leave them alone.

[shiney]

The muslim fundamentalists you mean. Don't forget a large portion of america is muslim/islam.

Anyways, discussion forum shakedown time.