Sponsored Links

[jenreiautter]

I've been hearing from many, including those previously opposed to the war, that we need to stay in Iraq -- that we are now committed to see it through.

My opinion is that we were wrong to attack them and are wrong to occupy them. US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and rebels are dying every day, and it's clear that as long as the US is there, there will be resistance and opposition that will often times be violent. I don't feel that it's a good idea to stay in Iraq and would like to see us pull out, but I understand that option could be de-stabilizing if not done properly.

Questions for Debate:

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

[Vermillion]

I have been one of the more vocal opponents of the decision to invade Iraq, based on exaggerations, half truths and sold to the world as 'making the world safer', even though I have yet to have anyone tell me exactly how the world, or the US, is safer now that Hussein is out of power.

However, even I have to admit that to just pull out of Iraq now would be idiocy, it would leave the country with a complete power vacuum, and lots of different entities (both internal and external) vying to claim control of one of the richest oil-states in the world. Shi'ite, Suuni and Ba'ath remnants, supported variously by saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Syria, and likely others would all compete for power, and any guesses as to wheither the competition will be bloodless?

Worse, no matter WHO gets in power from that motly list, it will go badly for the US, who will be (correctly) seen as invading the country, causing huge damage both politically and actually, and then fleeing and leaving a bloodbath in their wake.


To answer your question, what other options does the US have? Actually, I personally think the US has zero options right now. leaving would be disastrous, but staying may not be a much better option. This unplanned, undetailed, unspecific pipe dream about 'establishing democracy' in Iraq is frankly laughable. Even if they held elections, as soon as the US left you would see another post-Soviet aphganistan all over again, a great-power puppet state trying desperatly to stay in power while the remainder of the country tried to bring it down...

[turnea]

I personally think the US has zero options right now. leaving would be disastrous, but staying may not be a much better option. This unplanned, undetailed, unspecific pipe dream about 'establishing democracy' in Iraq is frankly laughable. Even if they held elections, as soon as the US left you would see another post-Soviet aphganistan all over again, a great-power puppet state trying desperatly to stay in power while the remainder of the country tried to bring it down...

Oh now come on, I think I put it best in another thread about whether a democracy in Iraq was possible.

Most of the arguments about the inevitable failure of a democratic Iraq are empty speculation. The fact that no democratic government has arisen there has more to do with unique historical circumstances than anything ingrained in the national character of the people...

Post

I agree that a pullout would likely be disastrous, Iraqi security forces must be adequately organized and government set on the road to general election if they are to have a reasonable shot at a better life. I think both of these events are well on their way to occurring.

Iraqis support democracy, if they are educated about how it works, they'll do just fine...

One reservation cited by opponents of quick elections is the fear that religious extremists would emerge victorious. But in many of the elections in Dhi Qar, Bradley said, teachers, doctors, lawyers and others have won. In the town of Rifai, professionals won seven of 10 races. In Batha, only two representatives of Islamic parties won seats on the 10-member council. 
 
In the elections this past week, though, there were signs that the parties were beginning to mobilize. In Chebayish, members of the two strongest Islamic parties -- the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party -- passed out lists of candidates. Some were handwritten, others typed. Many voters brought the lists inside and obediently marked off the choices.

In Iraqi Towns, Electoral Experiment Finds Some Success
It won't be America overnight, but it seems they are already years ahead of say... Mexico.

[Hobbes]

I don't feel that it's a good idea to stay in Iraq and would like to see us pull out, but I understand that option could be de-stabilizing if not done properly.

I'm not really sure what your question here is. No one has ever suggested we were going to stay there permanently, the plan all along has been to arrange things so that we could pull out. Attempting to do that properly is exactly what is being done now. To do so will require that : 1) an Iraqi government be set up, and 2) an Iraqi security force be setup, (not necessarily in that order). You could probably add 3) restore Iraqi infrastructure to a functional level. Both (all three) of these are on-going currently....what I think points out is that there really isn't any other course other than the one that's being taken. You could argue that some of the roles we're undertaking could be taken over by the UN, but so far it doesn't really look like the UN wants to take on that role (even if we really wanted to give it to them). However, if other countries want to participate (yes, even France), I don't think we should let pride dictate the course of events--if they can contribute in a constructive fashion, the more world involvement there is, I think the better the situation will be. Note that it remains to be shown whether such participation would really be constructive or not--adding more hands in the kitchen doesn't always speed up the process.

[Cube Jockey]

Iraqis support democracy, if they are educated about how it works, they'll do just fine...

Come on, we have been a Democracy for over 200 years and I think there are plenty of Americans who don't know how democracy works...

Now this is just my personal opinion and I can't cite anything to prove this out, but I believe that many Iraqi's aren't so concerned and educated about the Democratic process as they have a concern and desire for a capitalist economy like western nations. Given the kind of conditions they have lived in and the propaganda about western nations they have received I have a hard time believing that your average Iraqi knows anything at all about Democracy or Western nations other than we are rich. They don't know what a constant battle and daily struggle that democracy really is.

Now to answer the question for debate - I think we have no other options than staying the course at this point. The only question is how long will we have to stay the course?

It is my guess it will be several years at best and we will likely have to maintain some presence there even after we leave. If history is any kind of teacher, look at what happened in Yugoslavia after the Russians rolled up the carpet and left. Like Iraq, you had a very authoritarian government that was holding together several very different groups of people by an iron fist. As soon as the Russians pulled out the old groups renewed their fighting and hatred of each other and battled to control the country.

The exact same thing is going to happen in Iraq with the combination of the Shiites, Sunni and Kurd. These are groups that historically have not gotten along due to fundamental differences in culture, philosophy and thinking. To assume that creating a democracy where they can all work together is possible let alone easy is pure folly and ignores hundreds of years of history and other examples in recent history.

The Bush administration got us into this with no clear goals and no exit strategy. Now we are going to be involved in this for the long haul, Iraq will probably have a constant military presence much like Korea.

Democracy only works if people are willing to accept that sometimes the opposing political group is going to win out sometimes. Somehow I don't see that happening with the vastly different groups in Iraq.

[GoAmerica]

Leaving right now isn't an option. What we need to do is barge into Sadr's strongholds (Kufa and Najaf) and wipe him and his milita out and then clean out Fallujah.

Then we need to help rebuild the country then leave for the Iraqis to evolve on their own

[CruisingRam]

Well- I guess this question is a real "what if" kind of thing- because this administration has no clue at what it is doing, and has no clue at how to get out-

In a dream world, I would see the entire administration thrown in irons, tried for treason and hung - a good way to say sorry to the world- then we might regain some credibility to fix this situation- short of that- lord hoping any but bush wins the election- it is going to be very hard to pick up the pieces.

With GW gone- it would be possible for someone like Kerry to rebuild some bridges with our allies and getting them to pony up men and money to truly have an international stamp on the occupation, and then with our resources being bled somewhat less, we could rotate out our men more often, and stop being desperate and be more deliberate in this situation. If we had a truly global force in Iraq, with a massive amount of men and money- it would be easier to keep the combatants apart and start "educating" the population on how to rebuild a nation.

As long as the US is essentially going it alone (with some help by Britain)- we just are draining our men and resources in an un-winnable vietnam type situation.

[Amlord]

Well- I guess this question is a real "what if" kind of thing- because this administration has no clue at what it is doing, and has no clue at how to get out-

In a dream world, I would see the entire administration thrown in irons, tried for treason and hung - a good way to say sorry to the world- then we might regain some credibility to fix this situation- short of that- lord hoping any but bush wins the election- it is going to be very hard to pick up the pieces.

With GW gone- it would be possible for someone like Kerry to rebuild some bridges with our allies and getting them to pony up men and money to truly have an international stamp on the occupation, and then with our resources being bled somewhat less, we could rotate out our men more often, and stop being desperate and be more deliberate in this situation. If we had a truly global force in Iraq, with a massive amount of men and money- it would be easier to keep the combatants apart and start "educating" the population on how to rebuild a nation.

As long as the US is essentially going it alone (with some help by Britain)- we just are draining our men and resources in an un-winnable vietnam type situation.

Quite the mature attitude there, CR...

At the outside, Bush is guilty of putting America first. If that is a crime in your book...

Iraq was a legal war, a resumption of Gulf War I hostilities.

As for pulling out now, I think most reasonable people see the folly in it. A power vacuum would ensue, causing sheer chaos. Iraq would be up for grabs until someone instituted a Saddam-like dictatorship.

Perhaps that is what we should have done: installed a dictator to replace Saddam. We've tried that approach, too, and it doesn't work. Promoting democracy suddenly becomes bad?

Questions for Debate:

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

The US leaving Iraq at this point would cause chaos by definition. The US is currently the only security force keeping any sort of stability in the country. Until the Iraqi armed services and police services are up to speed, leaving is simply not an option.

What other options are there? We could announce a deadline by which we will leave, and aim our training of the Iraqi security forces along that deadline. Should we do that, we would be forced to comply regardless of the actual security situation as the deadline approaches. This would, of course, not work in all likelihood, as all manner of thugs try to assert their power just as the US would be pulling out.

As for reparations, I think rebuilding Iraq and freeing them should be enough. Iraq is already pumping more oil than we expected at this point (since the oil fields were never destroyed). Beyond that, Iraq is in much better shape than most countries in the region already.

[Artemise]

At the outside, Bush is guilty of putting America first. If that is a crime in your book... 

Iraq was a legal war, a resumption of Gulf War I hostilities.

Unfortunately neither of these statements are true or valid. Bush did not put America first or we would never have invaded. The war is costing us a fortune, masking the real WOT, there is no clear anwser that it is making us or anyone else safer, in fact the opposite is very likely, and if you think otherwise, then somebody please answer Vermillions repeated question on how?

A resumption of Gulf War I hostilities on what grounds? We went into Iraq to help out allies because of an invasion. We won. We called a cease fire, we sanctioned the country. How many times does one country have to pay for its (despotic leaders) mistakes and ours for supporting him in the first place? Its amazing how some people are still in denial that this war was based on bogus reasoning, and if they have a reason- refuse to explain it in anything but rhetoric, from the nonexistant WMD to freedom, WOT, blah blah blah. Having no answers to these points, just making empty points.

Perhaps that is what we should have done: installed a dictator to replace Saddam. We've tried that approach, too, and it doesn't work. Promoting democracy suddenly becomes bad?

Yes, Iraq seems to be a great American social project, trying every which way to get our foot in there somehow. If installing Saddam and arming him didnt work , we just keep trying, someday we might get it right and finally get Iraq under our wing, that is if total ignorance can ever accomplish anything by sheer luck or force. 30 years of suffering has been the result for Iraqis.

Beyond that, Iraq is in much better shape than most countries in the region already.

Which? Who else is occupied and in ashambles, fighting everyday, not able to walk the streets in safety and after we leave most likely be constantly on the verge of civil war? Oh yeah, Palestine, with Israel being the only other democracy in the region. Iraq is so bad that all reconstruction efforts have been halted, people are cowering in their homes, Iraqis are not working, convoys are being blown up, even the troops cannot get needed supplies. They and every other Muslim in the region is beginning to brew a deep hatred for our liberation tactics. We killed 600 civilians in Fallujah. I dont know who you could see as worse off, name one.

I like the part that freeing them should be enough. Its actually hysterical. Oh so benevolent american who believes we can free people by bombing and occupying them. Tisk tisk, Iraqs history has taught us otherwise.

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

The US will not pull out of Iraq anytime soon so the first question is N/A.
We cant pull out of Iraq now or civil war will definately ensue.

We need to work towards a cease fire by making some concessions. Bringing in the key players and discussing with them plans for withdrawl and reconstruction, and trying to convince them that we actually want to do some good there if hostilities would come to an end. That means talks and letting Iraqis decide on their future, together with us as mediators. Not simply our way or no way. Even the most vehement know that a direct pull out will leave the feuding factions to fight it out amongst themselves and I dont think they want to see that scenario either.

This,

What we need to do is barge into Sadr's strongholds (Kufa and Najaf) and wipe him and his milita out and then clean out Fallujah.

is just about as irrational an idea as could ever be thought of, and shows two things 1.) How little one knows about Iraq. 2.) How little a person cares about the lives of americans in the fight and and how easily they can demean Iraqi lives. It does not speak of liberation, freedom or democracy but genocide against the very people we supposedly went there to HELP.
I especially like the term, CLEAN OUT As if we were talking about some nasty dust and not peoples lives.
Opinions like this one make me more assured than ever that those who support the war do not care about Iraqis in the least, hence the freedom and democracy argument is simply cloak and dagger.

Im not sure about the reparations question. We will be in Iraq for a long time. If the hostilities can ever stay themselves for any length of time we might be able to do some rebuilding. If we get mired in constant fighting or circular peace and uprisings, we will ultimately fail and have to pull out at a loss.

The sooner we get real Iraqi leaders and not our puppets to the table the sooner we can get something accomplished.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Apr 20 2004, 09:28 AM

[CruisingRam]

Well- I guess this question is a real "what if" kind of thing- because this administration has no clue at what it is doing, and has no clue at how to get out-

In a dream world, I would see the entire administration thrown in irons, tried for treason and hung - a good way to say sorry to the world- then we might regain some credibility to fix this situation- short of that- lord hoping any but bush wins the election- it is going to be very hard to pick up the pieces.

With GW gone- it would be possible for someone like Kerry to rebuild some bridges with our allies and getting them to pony up men and money to truly have an international stamp on the occupation, and then with our resources being bled somewhat less, we could rotate out our men more often, and stop being desperate and be more deliberate in this situation. If we had a truly global force in Iraq, with a massive amount of men and money- it would be easier to keep the combatants apart and start "educating" the population on how to rebuild a nation.

As long as the US is essentially going it alone (with some help by Britain)- we just are draining our men and resources in an un-winnable vietnam type situation.

Quite the mature attitude there, CR...

At the outside, Bush is guilty of putting America first. If that is a crime in your book...

Iraq was a legal war, a resumption of Gulf War I hostilities.

As for pulling out now, I think most reasonable people see the folly in it. A power vacuum would ensue, causing sheer chaos. Iraq would be up for grabs until someone instituted a Saddam-like dictatorship.

Perhaps that is what we should have done: installed a dictator to replace Saddam. We've tried that approach, too, and it doesn't work. Promoting democracy suddenly becomes bad?

Questions for Debate:

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

The US leaving Iraq at this point would cause chaos by definition. The US is currently the only security force keeping any sort of stability in the country. Until the Iraqi armed services and police services are up to speed, leaving is simply not an option.

What other options are there? We could announce a deadline by which we will leave, and aim our training of the Iraqi security forces along that deadline. Should we do that, we would be forced to comply regardless of the actual security situation as the deadline approaches. This would, of course, not work in all likelihood, as all manner of thugs try to assert their power just as the US would be pulling out.

As for reparations, I think rebuilding Iraq and freeing them should be enough. Iraq is already pumping more oil than we expected at this point (since the oil fields were never destroyed). Beyond that, Iraq is in much better shape than most countries in the region already.

Boy- talk about "believing your own press" LOL-

How in the world is Iraq better than other nations in the region? Man- talk about a stretch

Bush is guilty of putting someone first, but it isn't America- some campaign donors that happen to be American, but not all Americans, that is pretty obvious to most

Still, my idea stands, as long as GW is somehow not in charge, we should try to regain our credibility with the world, repair our image as a teenage bully by reaching out to our allies, who turned out right after all, and make an agreement where we can get thier troops and money into that country so we are not shouldering 95% of the burden.

[lee]

The US leaving Iraq is not an option.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that troops (to some extent) will probably be needed in Iraq for at least another ten years. After the war, it seems Bush did not have planning to match the masterful battle plan he drafted in the actual invasion. As a supporter of the war, I am having serious doubts of its aftermath. I do not know if Bush is the best man for the job. I remember listening to Joe Biden before the invasion, and he was asking the proper questions. He mentioned that the troop numbers, length of stay, and overall plan for occupation did not add up. Had this reached more of America, hopefully Bush would have modified and improved his plans.

That being said, I find it difficult to believe Kerry could do anything to change what is happened. Nader says he would remove troops within six months, casting him even further outside any realm of reality. Bush has continually beat Kerry on national security, even with all of the current problems. Since it is going to be a Bush-Kerry matchup, Bush still has the edge. To have a Massachusettes liberal, inexperienced with commanding the entire American military, would be extremely unstable. After all, Bush has been the commander-in-chief for nearly four years. Whether you like it or not, that is an important factor.

[Beladonna]

Vermillion said:
I have been one of the more vocal opponents of the decision to invade Iraq, based on exaggerations, half truths and sold to the world as 'making the world safer', even though I have yet to have anyone tell me exactly how the world, or the US, is safer now that Hussein is out of power.

Although sound examples of how we are safer have been listed here at AD on different threads, if you do not want to believe them, you will not. The War in Iraq is, just as Bush stated, one theater in the larger War on Terror. Nevertheless, IMO, here are just a few very significant ways the US is safer.

1) The ousting of Saddam and his sons was the first step toward making the US safer = eradicating a state sponsor of terror.
2) We are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than on home soil.
3) Libya has disclosed its WMD due to the Iraq war.
4) Which in turn exposed a WMD proliferation program in Pakistan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the US suddenly had a change of heart and decided to pull out of Iraq, what would need to be done to ensure that we were leaving Iraq in the most stable way that we could?

I will not even entertain this thought. This administration will not reconsider its position on Iraq and many Americans will not either, including me.

The only way that MIGHT happen is if John Kerry wins the election. At that point, a “change of heart” would give credibility to the Ted Kennedy’s of this world who call Iraq - Vietnam. As John McCain so elequently stated in his speech to the Senate regarding comments made by Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry:

The vast majority of Iraqi people are glad we are there and they state unequivocally that they are better off than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

What is happening in Iraq today is we have a Sunni insurgency that consists of ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. They obviously are the only people who were better off during Saddam Hussein's regime because they were the favored minority that were of the same religion as Saddam. They realize they will never run Iraq again because they are in the minority. Because they are in the majority, the Shia will probably dominate that government, but we also have a constitution in Iraq that guarantees the rights of minorities. We are there and a new government will be there to guarantee those same rights.

The realities are the Sunni minority will never control Iraq again. We have a small minority of Shias who are trying to grab some political power before the July 1 transition. There is very little doubt that Sadr's followers are in a distinct minority and the majority of Shias still owe allegiance and have allegiance to the Ayatollah Sistani, who has argued, perhaps not forcefully enough, that we do not have the kind of armed conflict that we are seeing today.

What other options do we have other than "staying the course" and pulling out now?

We have no other options. Pulling out now, like Spain is doing, shows weakness, an ability to be manipulated and solidifies our reputation of cutting and running. We must stay the course.

What type of reparations could we make to "right the wrongs" that we have made in Iraq?

With all due respect, this question seems to conclude that we were wrong to liberate Iraq. In my opinion, that couldn't be farther from the truth.

If anyone owes reparations, it’s Saddam and the UN.

That being said, the Coalition is doing some wonderful things in that country, like reversing malnutrition, providing vaccinations, rehabilitating schools, rebuilding infrastructure, providing basic services, and promoting democracy to name a few. It seems to me we are righting many years of - wrongs.

[turnea]

Iraqis support democracy, if they are educated about how it works, they'll do just fine...

Come on, we have been a Democracy for over 200 years and I think there are plenty of Americans who don't know how democracy works...

Of course that might not be the best example to back up your assertion eh?

Now this is just my personal opinion and I can't cite anything to prove this out, but I believe that many Iraqi's aren't so concerned and educated about the Democratic process as they have a concern and desire for a capitalist economy like western nations. Given the kind of conditions they have lived in and the propaganda about western nations they have received I have a hard time believing that your average Iraqi knows anything at all about Democracy or Western nations other than we are rich. They don't know what a constant battle and daily struggle that democracy really is.

Well this has indeed been addressed in a couple of polls. In February 54% of Iraqis say that they are "interested" in politics, up significantly from early in the occupation. I doubt you'd get that many in the US. What's more women in Iraq are more likely than men to be interested.

On a list of priorities holding elections came out above reviving the economy, so there you go...

The exact same thing is going to happen in Iraq with the combination of the Shiites, Sunni and Kurd. These are groups that historically have not gotten along due to fundamental differences in culture, philosophy and thinking. To assume that creating a democracy where they can all work together is possible let alone easy is pure folly and ignores hundreds of years of history and other examples in recent history.

I see precious little evidence of that in post-war Iraq, the Kurds and the Shiites are frequent political allies already and though the Sunni's are worried about being steamrolled, I see no reason to think these differences are non-negotiable.

They are already getting along much better than many expected, again no reason to think this is Yugoslavia.

Iraq is so bad that all reconstruction efforts have been halted, people are cowering in their homes, Iraqis are not working, convoys are being blown up, even the troops cannot get needed supplies. They and every other Muslim in the region is beginning to brew a deep hatred for our liberation tactics. We killed 600 civilians in Fallujah. I dont know who you could see as worse off, name one.

Not true, as you have read before most Iraqis agree that there lives have improved since before the war. Reconstruction continues and progress is being made all the time. Iraqi say local security is even better than before the war, so I don't think Amlord's suggestion is so unreasonable...

A pullout would be foolish, the occupation has brought progress to the country and it is looking well on its way to bringing democracy. Iraqis want democracy, the US wants democracy the only people who don't are out-numbered and out-gunned. Connect the dots...
Iraq Poll with ABC notes
Iraq Poll (including priorities list

This post has been edited by turnea: Apr 20 2004, 07:35 PM

[Fife and Drum]

I’m really shocked at the naiveté of those who think it’s going to be easy to establish a democratic government. All we have to do is educate them?

CubeJockey hits the nail on the head: this part of the world has been ruled for centuries by sects and groups who quite simply don’t get along. To the point where they are willing to die for their differences. And we’re going to undo all that by education and waving the magic Democratic wand? Citizens are successfully governed by their own will, not one imposed by a perceived devil.

It was obvious from the onset of this boondoggle that it was being played out by the collective seats of the Bush administrations pants. One of the more glaring instances was watching looters walk away from the museums with centuries of Iraqi artifacts. Pitiful and shameful that we would allow this to happen. So one of the first ‘reparations’ should be restoring their museums.

As mentioned we unfortunately have no other option but to stay the course. But that begs another question asked often on this board, for how long? I was going to mention this in the Slouching Towards 600 thread but it’s appropriate here as well. The success of this war, occupation, and attempt to create a democratic state will not be determined on June 30th 2004, or June 30th 2005. It will be measure on June 30th 2024, 2054, 3004.

And by the way Turnea, I hope to never see you dismiss a source from any of the ‘liberal media’. Strange, as long as it supports a stance from the right, the ‘left biased media’ suddenly becomes a credible source.

[Beladonna]

Did someone here say democracy was going to be easy? I didn't interpret that to be what turnea said, if that is to whom you were referring.

As to the looters, we had more important things to do upon arrival in Baghdad than worry about looters and as it turned out only 33 artifacts were lost. I also understand that the museums are open again.

It would be wonderful if war plans called for troops to go in first to secure artifacts before invading. Even better if those we were at war with would allow that to happen.

[Vermillion]

The War in Iraq is, just as Bush stated, one theater in the larger War on Terror.  Nevertheless, IMO, here are just a few very significant ways the US is safer.

1)  The ousting of Saddam and his sons was the first step toward making the US safer = eradicating a state sponsor of terror.
2)  We are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than on home soil.
3)  Libya has disclosed its WMD due to the Iraq war.
4)  Which in turn exposed a WMD proliferation program in Pakistan.

Firstly, when I comment that all the right does is assert the world is a safer place without backing it up, it does not help your case when your first point is essentially restating the assertion that the world is a safer place. So lets go through your points:

1) As I said above, repeating an assertion does not make it any more factual. Firstly, the only link to terrorism in Iraq was the after the fact promise to fund the families of suicide bombers against Israel. So, as has been said before: a) Iraq was one of many states in the Middle East that did this, and Iraq sent far less money to palestinian families then saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc. B ) Since the suicide bombers in question have only EVER target israel, I assume the US has a transcript of a phone call, or document, or official fax in which israel asks for help, or indicated they want the US to intervene in any way? Oops, no, of course not. c) If indirectly, after the fact funding terroism is such a problem, I am waiting for the US to invade Boston, source of close to 60% of the IRA's funding for the last 30 years.

2) Thats truly weak. So the whole invasion of Iraq was some clever, Baldrick-esque ploy to lure terrorists in to a war-torn state to kill US troops? And all you had to do to create this little trap was kill 10-15,000 Iraqis? Actually, even if that WAS the plan, it seems to have failed, as since the US invasion of Iraq there have been al Qaeda attacks in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Spain, and thwarted attacks in the UK, France, Italy, Japan, Jordan... to name a few. besides, so far almost 700 Americans have died, more than the total of all Americans killed by al Quaida terrorist attacks apart from 9/11. So it seems the trappers have become the trapped... There were no Al Quaeda in Iraq before the war, so here is a brilliant ploy, if you want to lure them into battle, why not finish the job in Afghanistan as opposed to leaving the country effectively ungovourned, in a mess with rights and civil liberties for women returning to near-Taliban levels? If Afghanistan is an example of the US's post-war 'success', then the Iraqi people are right to be worried.

3) Lybia has started to co-operate with the West, this is true. It could be because of the Iraq war, it could be because Al Qaeda has tried to assassinate Khadaffi three times in the past 18 months. If it lasts, continues and bears any fruit, this might even be a good thing, far too early to tell...

4) And I suppose the US led invasion of Iraq also resulted in good weather in the midwest this planting season? The discovery of a man sellijg Pakistani secrets abroad came from an internal investigation. he had been selling secrets for three years, supposedly with the full knowledge of Musharraf (another US WOT ally) and his discovery had nothing to do with Iraq, or the US actions at all.


So, in contrast, now we have a state with between 10,000 and 15,000 war dead, 700 dead Americans, a state where both Shi'ite and Sunni unrest is growing and spreading into violence, where no real post war plan exists due to specific instructions not to develop one by Bush, with an Al Quaeda presence now when there was none before. The world is considerably less safe thanks to the Invasion of Iraq.



As to the other issue of the thread, the rebuilding of democracy, here is the wonder of a status quo argument: There has NEVER been a democracy in Iraq for close to 4000 years. Until the Bath party it was a religious state. So it is not up to me to prove that emocracy will not work in Iraq, that is the status quo. It is up to the right to prove that somehow a US sponsored and run election in Iraq will have any merit, support or validity. Even if it does happen, evidence is that it will be another post-USSR Afghanistan, with the people under the religious leadership of the massess dioing their best to bring down this foreign imposed puppet government.

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Apr 20 2004, 06:02 PM

[Cube Jockey]

Well this has indeed been addressed in a couple of polls. In February 54% of Iraqis say that they are "interested" in politics, up significantly from early in the occupation. I doubt you'd get that many in the US.   What's more women in Iraq are more likely than mean to be interested.  

On a list of priorities holding elections came out above reviving the economy, so there you go...

Ok, you have hard data there. Assuming for a minute that the poll is in fact valid, there is a big difference between being "interested" in politics and knowing how it works. Granted it is a good sign to see this in Iraqis.

The exact same thing is going to happen in Iraq with the combination of the Shiites, Sunni and Kurd. These are groups that historically have not gotten along due to fundamental differences in culture, philosophy and thinking. To assume that creating a democracy where they can all work together is possible let alone easy is pure folly and ignores hundreds of years of history and other examples in recent history.

I see precious little evidence of that in post-war Iraq, the Kurds and the Shiites are frequent political allies already and though the Sunni's are worried about being steamrolled, I see no reason to think these differences are non-negotiable.

They are already getting along much better than many expected, again no reason to think this is Yugoslavia.

There is currently no evidence? Take Kallujah for example. Almost every morning I read the news and there is some new incident that has happened there, what is the toll of America lives now this month -- approaching 100? That alone should show you that not everyone has swallowed the Democracy pill over there.

Iraq isn't the same as Yugoslavia right now, because we are effectively enforcing order there. Establishing a Democracy there is going to be extremely difficult because as I said previously, that involves making concessions to the other side occasionally (or frequently if you are the minority). That is something that historically these groups have never been able to do since they are so fundamentally different.

So lets assume for a second that we can somehow work a miracle and establish some for of Democracy where there is equal representation. After we leave the country, how long do you think it is going to be before some warlord rises up and tries to return things to the status quo?

Why does everyone think that we can change thousands of years of tradition and bad blood in just a year or two?

1) The ousting of Saddam and his sons was the first step toward making the US safer = eradicating a state sponsor of terror.
2) We are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than on home soil.
3) Libya has disclosed its WMD due to the Iraq war.
4) Which in turn exposed a WMD proliferation program in Pakistan.

1) There has been absolutely zero proof that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism despite much work spent trying to prove that by the Bush administration. This has been debated at length here on AD. No one is arguing that Saddam and his sons weren't bad people, but they were not terrorists.

2) See #1, we are not fighting terrorists. We were removing a regime for reasons only know to the Bush administration (although the rest of us can speculate) because they surely were not the reasons they published to the world.

3) This has also been debated here on AD and I believe (correct me if I'm worng) that evidence was presented that this was not necessarily due to Iraq, but rather just worked well timing-wise for the Bush administration.

4) I haven't personally read about this yet, but given that at the very least the first two were false and likely the third I would highly doubt that this is directly a result of what happened in Iraq. The more likely answer here is that due to increased intelligence gathering we were able to uncover this.

Bush is trying very hard now to sell this Iraq as a terrorist regime thing to the world and no one is buying.

[keric]

Well this has indeed been addressed in a couple of polls. In February 54% of Iraqis say that they are "interested" in politics, up significantly from early in the occupation. I doubt you'd get that many in the US.   What's more women in Iraq are more likely than mean to be interested.  

On a list of priorities holding elections came out above reviving the economy, so there you go...

Ok, you have hard data there. Assuming for a minute that the poll is in fact valid, there is a big difference between being "interested" in politics and knowing how it works. Granted it is a good sign to see this in Iraqis.

The exact same thing is going to happen in Iraq with the combination of the Shiites, Sunni and Kurd. These are groups that historically have not gotten along due to fundamental differences in culture, philosophy and thinking. To assume that creating a democracy where they can all work together is possible let alone easy is pure folly and ignores hundreds of years of history and other examples in recent history.

I see precious little evidence of that in post-war Iraq, the Kurds and the Shiites are frequent political allies already and though the Sunni's are worried about being steamrolled, I see no reason to think these differences are non-negotiable.

They are already getting along much better than many expected, again no reason to think this is Yugoslavia.

There is currently no evidence? Take Kallujah for example. Almost every morning I read the news and there is some new incident that has happened there, what is the toll of America lives now this month -- approaching 100? That alone should show you that not everyone has swallowed the Democracy pill over there.

Iraq isn't the same as Yugoslavia right now, because we are effectively enforcing order there. Establishing a Democracy there is going to be extremely difficult because as I said previously, that involves making concessions to the other side occasionally (or frequently if you are the minority). That is something that historically these groups have never been able to do since they are so fundamentally different.

So lets assume for a second that we can somehow work a miracle and establish some for of Democracy where there is equal representation. After we leave the country, how long do you think it is going to be before some warlord rises up and tries to return things to the status quo?

Why does everyone think that we can change thousands of years of tradition and bad blood in just a year or two?

1) The ousting of Saddam and his sons was the first step toward making the US safer = eradicating a state sponsor of terror.
2) We are fighting terrorists in Iraq rather than on home soil.
3) Libya has disclosed its WMD due to the Iraq war.
4) Which in turn exposed a WMD proliferation program in Pakistan.

1) There has been absolutely zero proof that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism despite much work spent trying to prove that by the Bush administration. This has been debated at length here on AD. No one is arguing that Saddam and his sons weren't bad people, but they were not terrorists.

2) See #1, we are not fighting terrorists. We were removing a regime for reasons only know to the Bush administration (although the rest of us can speculate) because they surely were not the reasons they published to the world.

3) This has also been debated here on AD and I believe (correct me if I'm worng) that evidence was presented that this was not necessarily due to Iraq, but rather just worked well timing-wise for the Bush administration.

4) I haven't personally read about this yet, but given that at the very least the first two were false and likely the third I would highly doubt that this is directly a result of what happened in Iraq. The more likely answer here is that due to increased intelligence gathering we were able to uncover this.

Bush is trying very hard now to sell this Iraq as a terrorist regime thing to the world and no one is buying.

Just because you say it's false, doesn't make what you say true. There's been plenty of facts to support the other side's conclusions as well.

1. I happen to believe that the world is safer with Saddam gone. Considering the contents of the Feith memo, the fact he harbored known terrorists, and the Palestinian suicide bomber fund... these in my view point to the view that he did have some connections to terrorism.

2. Considering that Al-Qaeda has been behind a number of the attacks in Iraq, remember the letter stating the intention to drive Iraq to civil war and so on? I would consider them terrorists, but hey, you can call them 'freedom fighters'. Turnea is right, a majority of Iraq is peaceful and wishes for a better future. This is but a small minority causing problems. The insurgents in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle for example are for the most part Baathist holdovers, Sunnis angered at the loss of priveledge they enjoyed under Saddam, not to mention the numerous foreign fighters from Syria, Jordan, and so on. As for Sadr and his militia, there have been numerous reports that Iran is behind him (training, funding, etc), which is no surprise, but that's another topic I guess.

3. Libya. Considering the comments made from Libyan officials and Gadhafi & family, it appears the war in Iraq did influence his cooperation. Interesting tid-bit of trivia, in a Guardian article I read awhile back, Gadhafi's son has come out publicly in support of the invasion in Iraq and the spreading of democracy in the Iraq and surrounding region.

4. Well, from what I understand, the Pakistan connection was always suspected to exist, but definitive proof wasn't found till Libya turned over documents detailing the links.

But hey, this is what I believe. Considering the polarization of the nation this year, I don't expect very many Democrats to even agree on this and vice versa.

-Editting-

I found the Gadhafi's son article.

Gadhafi's Son: Bush Plan Should Be Backed

He seems to believe the Middle East is open to democracy....

This post has been edited by keric: Apr 20 2004, 07:45 PM

[turnea]

So lets assume for a second that we can somehow work a miracle and establish some for of Democracy where there is equal representation.  After we leave the country, how long do you think it is going to be before some warlord rises up and tries to return things to the status quo?

Why does everyone think that we can change thousands of years of tradition and bad blood in just a year or two?

I still see little point in this "thousands of years" of tradition argument. Didn't Europeans have thousands of years of barbarianism and authoritarian governments and ethnic conflicts, and on and on? Don't some democracies have them now? What about the democracies of Asia? If the people want democracy, if those who do not lack the military power to stop it, then I see no reason why Iraqis won't grasp democracy.

It doesn't matter how long worse governments lasted, what matters is the state on the nation today. Today Iraq is a state that intends to have a democracy, and a democracy they will have...

Sure history has its effects, but instead of reffering to them in broad intangible terms, could we maybe get to the details? What exactly is stopping the Iraqis, most of which want peace and democracy, from claiming it? The tiny minority of insurgents? They don't stand a chance... Sectarian conflict is at very manageable levels...

So it is not up to me to prove that emocracy will not work in Iraq, that is the status quo.

I think there is a gap in your logic. Has democracy been tried in Iraq only to fail? Only then would you actually have the status quo on your side...

That democracy hasn't happened really isn't the same as history suggesting it can't happen.

[Hobbes]

The war is costing us a fortune, masking the real WOT, there is no clear anwser that it is making us or anyone else safer, in fact the opposite is very likely, and if you think otherwise, then somebody please answer Vermillions repeated question on how?

Gladly (again). I have replied consistently as to the reasoning behind the war, and the actual links between Iraq and the WOT. Artemise, to her credit, is the only one who had even tried to refute these points; however, they still stand. The situation in Iraq created the need for our continued troop presence in the Muslim Holy Land, directly 'creating' UBL (this was his 'call to arms', and the point he used to rally his troops against us). In addition, the sanctions we imposed as part of the cease fire were viewed by many (most?) Muslims as terrorist acts against Muslims, not against Saddam, as they primarily affected the Iraqi people. Further, the ability of Saddam to continue to thwart the aims of both the US and the UN gave the terrorists evidence that they could in fact sway US opinion, and that we had no stomach to fight them. Also, the continued situation in Iraq placed a considerable drain on both our military and our intelligence communities, placing us at greater risk elsewhere (Note what happened on 9-11). None of these situations was resolvable unless Saddam was removed from power, and I haven't seen anyone say how else that would have happened. Finally, it should be clear to everyone that many of the basic social elements which allow terrorism to be so rampant in that region weren't going to change without a fundamental change in the social structure. Granted, this was a bold step towards that, but, again, while criticism has been rampant, better ideas seem quite scarce. One thing was quite clear--continuation of the status quo was completely unacceptable.

We need to work towards a cease fire by making some concessions. Bringing in the key players and discussing with them plans for withdrawl and reconstruction, and trying to convince them that we actually want to do some good there if hostilities would come to an end. That means talks and letting Iraqis decide on their future, together with us as mediators.

I don't disagree with this--but isn't this what's happening currently? We have been trying to get the the Iraqi's as involved in the process as possible, and this is the entire reasoning behind the proposed transfer of power. I think the majority of Iraqi's understand this--that is why the current sentiment favors our involvement, and the uprising's haven't been more widespread.

..repair our image as a teenage bully by reaching out to our allies, who turned out right after all, and make an agreement where we can get thier troops and money into that country so we are not shouldering 95% of the burden.

Two points. First, there is certainly no evidence that our allies turned out to be right about anything other than the fact they were acting to protect their own self-interests in Iraq. Second, exactly what makes you think they have any interest in putting troops and money into Iraq? They won't, unless they have something to gain. Are you stating that it is OK for them to shape their policies in the exact manner in which you constantly criticize GWB for doing? Or am I missing something here?

Opinions like this one make me more assured than ever that those who support the war do not care about Iraqis in the least...

Ditto for those who continue to argue against the war, preferring maintenance of the status quo, where the reality of the situation was that Saddam was committing genocide on a massive scale, ruling through sheer terror and brutality. Exactly how anyone can support that situation and claim to care about Iraqi's is beyond me. However, I know for a fact that many of you do, to a very high degree....so, can't we assume such caring is a bit more universal, and avoid such pointless rhetoric?