What can the American People do to make up for the injustice

[Stan]

HOT TOPIC

What can the American People do to make up for the injustice they have done to the Iraqi people?

[Woody]

What injustices? We rescued them. They are thanking us. Most of those in Iraq in the polls say they support us being there. I think we have spent enough on helping Iraq. A better question would be ... what can they do to thank US?

[Bravus]

:dumbfounded: (again)

[Woody]

Call in the paramedics.

[Dr. Shane]

Bad things happen in war. Saddam is to blame for this war and he is dead so I don't think he can do anything to make up from bringing this war on his country.

[Amelia]

HOT TOPIC

What can the American People do to make up for the injustice they have done to the Iraqi people?

I'm not saying America doesn't have some culpability there but what has Iraq done to make up for the injustice of 9/11? What did the Japanese do to make up for the injustice of Pearl Harbor? What about Germany and the injustice of Hitler to the Jews? Britain and the injustice to India? How about the injustice of all invading peoples to the native cultures of the countries they pillaged?

[John317]

I believe the best thing we could do for the Iraqi people is to help them have a stable government, train their army and police, rebuild their infrastructure, and stop the sectarian violence. We need to stay there and not leave them until they are ready to take over control.

I think one of the worst things we could do to the Iraqi people and to the region as a whole is to pick up and leave while the Iraqi government is unable to defend itself. If we were to leave immediately, it would only lead to a worse situation than is there now. It would no doubt lead to genocide, and many of those who supported us would be killed. Our allies would lose confidence in our determination to support them and fight during hard times.

Al-Qaeda has said that Iraq is the centerpiece of its war against the United States. If we were to leave, both they and Iran would fill the vacuum. Obama has already said that if Al-Qaeda established itself in Iraq, he would have to send American troops back. If he had to do that, the American troops would face a far worse situation than is there currently, and there would be a much greater cost to pull all of them out and then send them back in later.

[Bravus]

Two things Amelia:

1. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so why should they be the ones to make up for it?

2. Do you really want and intend to line America up in the company of Imperial Japan and Hitler?

[Bravus]

John, Al Qaeda is a loosely-connected terrorist network, not a government or political party. It is not going to ever govern Iraq. It might support the installation of a fundamentalist Muslim government. But Al Qaeda are Wahabist and would likely strongly resist an Iran-backed Shiite government in Iraq. Part of the problem with *most* American analyses of the reason and the likely consequences of a withdrawal is an insufficiently detailed understanding of the actual motivations and alignments of the various groups in play.

If the scenario you describe - America building a safe and stable Iraq - were *possible* it would definitely be the best outcome. But there's 5 years worth of history with no end in sight showing that it's not - so keeping the troops there to facilitate it is beginning to come under that well-known definition of insanity.

[Amelia]

Well there is a reason for me to stay out of politics.

[John317]

Maybe what we ought to do is find someone just like Saddam and his sons and all his other henchmen, extend our sincerest apologizes to the Iraqi people for getting rid of their previous dictator and for offering them their freedom, and then ask the next dictator, and Al-Qaeda, to please take over so we can leave on the next plane.

That would save a lot of money and some American lives and we could then come back feeling that we've done the right thing.

[Bravus]

Did they *ask* you (with the exception of exiles like Chalabi) to attack their country and remove their dictator? Really? Presuming to do what is best for someone - and killing a hundred thousand or so of them in the process - is a pretty dangerous course.

Oh, and of course, 'removing the dictator' was about the third reason given for the invasion, after 'responsibility for 9/11' and 'WMD' had already fallen over... and after public attention had been oh so conveniently shifted from Bib Laden to Hussein as the bad guy flavor of the month.

[Bravus]

Some of us pay attention and remember.

[Bravus]

Hugs for Amelia: didn't mean to tackle you the same way I tackle these rough brutes.

[John317]

....If the scenario you describe - America building a safe and stable Iraq - were *possible* it would definitely be the best outcome. But there's 5 years worth of history with no end in sight showing that it's not - so keeping the troops there to facilitate it is beginning to come under that well-known definition of insanity.

I understand the complexities, but how long did it take us to go from our Declaration of War to the establishment of our government? It took us 14 years. There is a lot of progress there, not as much as we would like, but the point is that if we leave now, we will lose everything that Americans have fought and died for since 2003. It would also only make the situation there far worse, not only in Iraq but throughout the whole region. And it would encourage America's enemies, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

In any case, no matter who becomes president, he or she won't be able to pull all of American troops out like some of them have promised. We will have to keep troops there until 2010 or so unless we are willing to witness total collapse and chaos.

To leave precipitately would only make it impossible for the US to win at a time when the Iraqi government and the US are making progress towards winning the struggle. We would, in effect, be defeating ourselves.

That is what happened in Vietnam. We won the Ten Offensive. It was a terrible military defeat to the communists, but we lost it politically because the American people at home perceived it to be lost. America lost that conflict, not on the battlefield, but on the streets of America. Something similar to that is happening now. We lost it because we-- not the soldier's but the American people themselves-- lost the will to fight on. We decided it wasn't worth the cost. We weren't defeated; we quit. That is what could happen again.

[John317]

I don't recall anyone in the US ever saying that the primary reason we invaded Iraq was to remove a dictator simply because he was a dictator.

It had to do with the fact that Saddam had been in defiance for years of UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections, etc., but the UN lacked the will to enforce those resolutions. It also had to do with the fact that virtually all of the leading intelligence services believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton certainly believed it before Bush came into office.

I think the current government in Iraq is much to be preferred and the majority of people of Iraq are also happy to be rid of Saddam. We wouldn't expect them to be happy with the current situation in Iraq, of course. But does that mean the answer is to give up and leave? Would leaving there making the situation better?

[Bravus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

[Dr. Shane]

Here is a quick summery of the reasons for invading Iraq in the order they were listed on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

1. Violation of Cease-fire Agreement of first Gulf War

2. "Weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors" indicated Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.

3. "Iraq persists... to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population"

4. Iraq used WMDs on its own people

5. Iraq attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States.

6. "Members of al Qaida... are known to be in Iraq"

7. "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations"

8. "the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations"

9. Iraq has demonstrated willingness to use WMDs

Saddam is to blame. If he had abided by the cease-fire agreement and been forthcoming with the weapons inspectors, they wouldn't have even still been there in 1998 when he threw them out. Let's remember, this is the guy that corrupted the UN with the oil-for-food scandal. He was in the process of getting sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs and eventually go nuclear. If we had known then what we know now we certainly could have handled it better. But we didn't know and there was no way for us to know.

[Woody]

Quote:

these rough brutes

Name calling. Name calling. Name calling.

Where's a good moderator when you need one. John ... you've deleted posts for less. Come on ....

[Woody]

Here is a quick summery of the reasons for invading Iraq in the order they were listed on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

1. Violation of Cease-fire Agreement of first Gulf War

2. "Weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors" indicated Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs.

3. "Iraq persists... to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population"

4. Iraq used WMDs on its own people

5. Iraq attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States.

6. "Members of al Qaida... are known to be in Iraq"

7. "Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations"

8. "the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations"

9. Iraq has demonstrated willingness to use WMDs

Saddam is to blame. If he had abided by the cease-fire agreement and been forthcoming with the weapons inspectors, they wouldn't have even still been there in 1998 when he threw them out. Let's remember, this is the guy that corrupted the UN with the oil-for-food scandal. He was in the process of getting sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs and eventually go nuclear. If we had known then what we know now we certainly could have handled it better. But we didn't know and there was no way for us to know.

Please notice the number one reason. This is why it was not two wars but one. We continued the war because they were in violation. They attacked Kuwait and signed a cease fire agreement. Over many years ... they continued to violate the cease fire. So, the reason we went to war was to Free Kuwait. That is the reason we are in Iraq.

[Stan]

Remember, before Iraq went into Kuwait, GB sr said to SH, via the Iraqi embassy "the borders of the muslim countries are not of concern to the american people' then he flip-flopped, after the Kuwiat gov't in excile hire a 5th Ave PR firm to sell the war.

[Woody]

Please provide references. I have no memory of this.

[Bravus]

I'm a rugby player, Redwood - 'rough brutes' is a term of affection!

[Woody]

Ah thanks. I feel so affectionated.

[John317]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

That was August 2007.

When it comes to what is going on in Iraq, I think the BBC has demonstrated they can't be trusted to be objective and tell both sides of a story. They have an axe to grind. I like the news that has people speaking from both the liberal and conservative viewpoints.