Real life Uncle ruckes

On one hand, you have Iraqi people that support the US, turn out for elections, enlist in the New Iraqi Army, and become law enforcement recruits..

on the other hand, you have Iraqi insurgents that hate the US, attack the Iraqi army, blow up police checkpoints, and threaten violence at election facilities,...

If we left tomorrow, people that supported anything that the US did to bring that country out of the third-world, would be going up against insurgents, with no support. They would capitulate in the face of iraqi insurgent warlords, and Iraq would go back to being a nation led by the most powerful insurgent leader.

We would be repeating what happened after the first gulf war, when bush said our country would back the Iraqi people. We left that country, and Saddam started gassing people who wanted that country to be different from what it was. The only difference is Saddam is dead. But there are many guys like him, who would gladly step into position as dictator, and would commit the same atrocities that he did, while he ran that country.

Unless the people that supported the new face of Iraq simply laid down peacefully, I see bloody uproar between the old and the new. A civil war, if you would have it.

To prevent this from happening, more and more money will go into this war, regardless of whether or not anyone supported it from the beginning.

 

Seriously, The first thing that is forgotten by people from your perspective is Iraq never did anything to us. OK. 9-11 happened, we went after al Qaeda and all then we just ended up in Iraq for some reason...

The thing you're trying to do is rationalize something irrational and and illogical.

The main reason I'm able to look at this like this is because at one time I was on board with this nonsense.

The notion that we're there to "promote democracy" is a blatant falsehood to begin with. We don't give a crap about the Iraqis voting and democracy or anything of the sort.

Let's look at the history of it all. After Saddam and all.. When the initial dust settled who was the supposed leader of Iraq? Ayad Allawi, right? Then we suposedly wanted to promote these elections and bring peace and the purple ink on the fingers and all this happy shit. And then who emerged the leader? Ibrahim al-Jaafari, right?

This is who "the people" wanted, right? Well who runs Iraq now, supposedly? Nouri Kamel al-Maliki, right? All because we bitched about it and had the guy refuse the nomination for the permanent council. So in essence we didn't give a damn about democracy.

And for the rest of it. Understand one thing. It's not our job to "bring countries out of the third world" It's not our job to install leaders or topple dictators. We have been doing that for decades and this is what we have gotten.

You constantly neglect the history of that region in your previous post. The whole reason Saddam himself emerged to run that country is because of us. We learned nothing from the Shah of Iran, which led to the Ayatollah. We learned nothing when we toppled King Farouk and it gave us Nasser. King Idris removal gave us Khadafi. We worked to get rid of King Feisal in Iraq and ultimately it gave us Saddam Hussein. Hussein who was touted "A Western Style Leader" a leader we could deal with.

And one thing that sickens me is this "Iraqi insurgents" nonsense. Now I'm from New York. And if China came over, and occupied New York I'd be a fucking insurgent. We are over there, in their country. Occupying their land. And Iraq never attacked us. Now if we're over there interfering in the business of a sovereign nation I'm not saying I support them attacking us.. Just that I can understand.

This arrogant attitude that we as a nation can just go over and dictate to other people how they should live and interact with the world and act and be. If those people want to live in the 13th century leave them the hell alone and let them.

9-11 was a tragic and sad event. As a New Yorker I understand it clearly. But as a person that has learned that since World War I we have been using the middle east as a catalyst. Subjugating the people of that region.

After the Warld Wars The British and ourselves literally took the middle east, and on a bar napkin drew the boundaries of what we believed the middle east should look like. And you don't think they have just a little reason to be pissed because of that.

People neglect the history of that region. And what has brought us to the point of where we are now.

 

so, what would you have us do then?

the cause of this war and whether or not we should have went in, in the first place, is not a relevant issue. We can't turn back the clock and un-invade a country, to prevent present day grief.

what matters now, is what we do with the mess that we created. I never said that I supported going into this country (although, taking out a dictator with nuclear weapons before he uses them against us, was a good reason..it just wasn't a true one). I just understand that while we are there, everything we do will have some sort of effect on us nationally and globally.

Would you have us pull out of Iraq, or what?

 

Saddam Hussein never had any capacity to deliver any nuclear or chemical threat to the United States. I believe after 5 years the fact that not one significant "Weapon of mass Destruction" was found is blaring evidence of that.

We've been there since 1991, remember? Which was also a joke. We had "No Fly Zones" and all. We decimated the capacity Iraq had for launching any real attack back then.

As for turning back the clock and uninvading a country. We sat here for years debating leaving Vietnam while hundreds upon thousands died due to political posturng. We heard the same arguments then too. How if we left Vietnam the world would collapse in communism and we'd all be goosestepping in months.

The same basic nonsense that took us to Vietnam to begin with. But we did leave, and those images of the remaining few at the embassy being airlifted we'll all remember. And yes there was a bunch of turmoil in the immediate aftermath. Many died. And that is tragic.

40 years later though Vietnam is on the prime list of nations we trade with. Vietnam is basically now a place we can do business with. And we failed to meet our goals there. But after we left a magnificent thing ultimately happened. The people there, who had the ultimate stake in what went on there realized that they were the ones who had to fix their nation.

The people who will have to fix Iraq will have to be the Iraqi people. We have to stop building permanent bases there while saying we're only there until the problem is gone. Sending mixed messages.

We have contractors there who have a vested interest in making money from the war. That go around killing and stirring shit up there. They have to go. The Iraqi people need to be the ones to rebuild their nation. Free from the interference of contractors.

You'd be amazed if we just left, and stopped agitating these people how quickly natural order would return. You speak as if before we got there it was a horrible place to be.

Iraq was one of the places in the middle east that had some of the most progressive people in the area. There were a ton of educated people there. The women were getting educated and freeing themselves from the old world way of oppression. The youth were changing the way things were. Incomes were slowly rising.

Iraq wasn't Afghanistan.

You want to end the turmoil in Iraq. Fine. Leave.

If you're sticking your hand in a hornet's nest. And the hornets are biting you, what do you first? Stick it in deeper and say they're biting you because of your freedom? Or pull the thing out. You have to stop the initial act of insanity first before you even get to to the healing part.