[maxfreemann]

I completely agree with that, until you get to the "...and we wonder why they want us out" part. I was never for the war, and I agree we have created a deplorable situation. But what would the effects of us leaving be? Sure, the anti-West people there want us out, and I'm sure a large swathe of ordinary Iraqi's want the US out for pride reasons, it being their country. However what is going to reduce violence the most? Sure, if we leave, there's less hatred, but there's also far less security forces to keep the peace. Indeed, it sickens me when someone like Hillary, who voted for the war in Iraq, argues that we need our troops out as the cost in American lives and taxpayer money is too high. Excuse me?! If you decide to invade a country, you have a moral obligation to not leave it in complete disarray. How many Iraqi's will die if the US just pulls out? Given that the war has happened, leaving before Iraq has the ability to look after its own security issues and keep its own peace would be a more morally dubious act than going in in the first place.

Cost could be cut by swapping contracted security forces paid over 10 times as much as US soldiers for normal US forces. Moreover, I'm sure the British have done it more efficiently, as while I realise the US has far more troops there, it's cost the US well over $400bn yet even including Afghanistan as well, the UK has spent less than £6bn in total on foreign policy.

But really, that's all immaterial, IMHO. We decided to go in, we decided to start this war. Yes, it is good to remove a brutal dictator, but couldn't we at least have waited until after we'd finished with Afghanistan properly and managed to use these resources to really stop terrorism? He wasn't an imminent threat. But we started this war, and we have a duty to not leave a vaccuum of power and a lack of any ability to keep the peace.

So really, Iraq comes down to a simple solution:
Get a broad spectrum of Middle-East experts to help advise on how best to improve security and help the Iraqi's do so,
Then put in the troops, the training, and help the Iraqi's become self-sufficient,
Then pull troops out.

Yes, Bush's policies have and seem to still be failing, but that doesn't mean it's time to cut and run. It means we need to look at what is best for Iraq. Not what is best for the US taxpayer. That's what perspective means for me - understanding that it's time to do what's best for Iraqi's and save as many lives as possible, not start talking about the US cost and the need to cut and run.

[MicoSiru]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Iraqi on Iraqi ethnic hatred has nothing to do with us. Considering America supported Saddam's regime, thus empowering the Sunni minority for decades allowing them to brutalize the Shia and Kurdish population, I'd say the ethnic hatred has everything to do with us.

[Justlovemy]

You made the mess, you clean it up. Maybe it will make you think twice next time the opportunity comes around.

[Barbshowers]

You made the mess, you clean it up. Maybe it will make you think twice next time the opportunity comes around. Again, what does America have to do with Iraqi interethinic group hatred?

[sDePrx59]

Originally posted by PLATO
I was unaware that we both caused the Shia/Sunni divide and set up Al Quaeda! The latter wasn't an Iraq issue before, and the former was find under Hussein. What dannubis means, I think, is that in invading Iraq, we created a mess that wasn't there before. Sure, we removed the mess of Hussein, but that doesn't lessen the responsibility to not leave a bigger mess in its place.

Originally posted by PLATO
Let's not forget that Sadaam killed 3 million people to keep the religious rivalry in check in Iraq. If we can work through that well enough to put a coalition democracy in place with some secular guarantees then it will be well worth it in terms of both stability and the effort we have put into it. Yes, but that doesn't contradict dannubis' point at all. The point is that we made the mess, in terms of invading Iraq, and so have a responsibility to clean it up.

Originally posted by PLATO
The current lack of understanding of the stakes by the US democrats and the totally inept running of the war by the US republicans does not diminish the importance of being succesfull in Iraq. Exactly!

Originally posted by PLATO
Yes...it is a mess, but one that has been a long time coming. If we had not intervened, then it would probably have happened once the Hussein family fell from power...just with the Iranians calling the shots instead of us. Perhaps, but that doesn't lessen the need to finish what we've started now.

What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think dannubis necessarily disagrees with what you're saying. I agree with his comment, and with yours - we need to clean it up.

[feAilei1]

I would be all for them cleaning up their mess if they were left to it Patroklos. The problem is that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and al Qaeda all have pretty relevant stakes in the outcome. It is likely that one of these entities would end up "cleaning up the mess" in their favor. With the possible exception of the Saudis, that is unlikely to be a clean up in our favor or in the favor of overall ME and world stability.

[diundasmink]

Originally posted by Drogue
But really, that's all immaterial, IMHO. We decided to go in, we decided to start this war. Yes, it is good to remove a brutal dictator, but couldn't we at least have waited until after we'd finished with Afghanistan properly and managed to use these resources to really stop terrorism? He wasn't an imminent threat. But we started this war, and we have a duty to not leave a vaccuum of power and a lack of any ability to keep the peace.

So really, Iraq comes down to a simple solution:
Get a broad spectrum of Middle-East experts to help advise on how best to improve security and help the Iraqi's do so,
Then put in the troops, the training, and help the Iraqi's become self-sufficient,
Then pull troops out.

Yes, Bush's policies have and seem to still be failing, but that doesn't mean it's time to cut and run. It means we need to look at what is best for Iraq. Not what is best for the US taxpayer. That's what perspective means for me - understanding that it's time to do what's best for Iraqi's and save as many lives as possible, not start talking about the US cost and the need to cut and run. QFT. Drogue +1

[DoterrFor]

No you detonated the situation. And as usual didn't have a plan for what to do with the mess you created.

And now the entire west faces a dilemma: the US stays and nothing is solved, or the US leaves and a second Afghanistan is created. Nice isn't it ?

[doctorzlo]

Are you tripping or something ?

[Maserati]

Why should we care about Iraq when lots of people are dieing in Darfur based on the arguements in the article MrnotFun posted?

[expiclefich]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We didn't create the situation.

[Kayakeenemeds]

Didn't the United States put Saddam in power? No, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[G778G9P0]

Originally posted by MrFun



I agree -- we need to take serious action in Darfur.
I honestly didn't know a great deal about the crisis in Darfur (it's not like it gets a great deal of attention) until I read the book 'Slave', based on the true story of Mende Nazer, whose village was raided whilst she was a child and amidst all the slaughter was caputered and taken into slavery. Absolutely harrowing and it's a crime that the media aren't paying more attention to the genocide.

[Discus]

US can not solve this mess. No one can. It has shifted into an internal conflict.

As sad as it is, there won't be a commitment up to 500k or so people to sustain the violence. Even then it would take years to build the place up and all the things that needs to be in place so they could take over peacefully.

It won't happen. There's no reason for the US to be stuck in what can be described as a moral or whatever debt. World doesn't work like that. World implements the reality. And the reality is, no one can sort out this mess anymore, it got out of the hand a long time ago, so what's the point staying? It'll just cost a lot of money, get many soldiers killed and wounded for the inevitable result that can't be changed.

I say **** it. Let them sort it out. Keep an eye to it, because chances are some scum will win the power, because the most ruthless at this point will fill in the vacuum, so it doesn't come biting back after a while.

[Joircarm]

For what it is worth, I don't really mind going to Iraq this December.

I could have even easily gotten out of it by just failing a class on purpose this semester.

But I didn't.

[gennick]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Ok, but Rumsfeld and Saddam sure became good buddies after his own rise to power in Iraq in spite of Saddam's inhumane crimes against his own people.

[Jjfotqse]

But the fact remains, once he was in a position to take control of the government and it was clear that he would be friendly to US interests, they supported him. No, that is not the fact you stated. You are wrong.

Saddam was already in power and firmly entrenched before he recieved any support from the US.

The rest of your new point is stupid, obviously we didn't use him until he presented and opportunity to be used. Not that there is anything wrong with using one dictator to battle a political enemy. Where is the downside?