I think we'll leave anytime the government decides they want out and concocts a cover story to match. The administration has come out with a string of reasons for invading Iraq among them WMDs, Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, various UN resolutions, Saddam was a bad guy and liberation of the Iraqi people.
So none of these reasons were legitimate?
Quote:
Originally posted by neutrino23
There is a strong chance that the country will devolve into civil war and little chance that it will evolve into a functioning democracy. In other words, I think it is a mess.
What were the chances for freedom and/or democracy before the war?
The Iraq is a mess tack seems to be the approach the media and the left wingers are taking.
Quote:
Originally posted by neutrino23
Even with our troops there something like 5,000 Iraqis are dying a month. This is far higher than the roughly 2,000 a month who were dying under Saddam. So much for the value of our security forces. I just don't see how we are going to force peace on those people at the end of a gun barrel. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not next year, not in ten years.
I haven't heard anything approaching that number. The US military does not make any estimates of either military or civilian casualties amongst the enemy, so other organizations have taken on the task.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net has a maximum of >11,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces since the war started 15 months back. That averages out to 733 people each month, or about 24 each day. If one adds Iraqi military or insurgents into the picture, then it's realistic to double that total and rate. But 5000 a month sounds like a large exaggeration.
This looks totally damning as regards the coalition's "welcome". The talk about "liberating the Iraqi people" or "installing democracy" has been proven to be as phoney as Bush's pre-election promise of "no nation building". After 15 months of chaos, looting, terrorism where there wasn't any before, lack of power, water and basic services, broken promises, Saddam-like conduct by the occupation, criminal appointees by the coalition, and more. The Iraqi people are now absolutely sick of our presence, (as well as the insane policy makers who started and continue to fuel this debacle). Perhaps it may be a good idea to get the hell out of there before any new terrorist groups hellbent on revenge against the USA get organized and funded well enough to carry out retaliatory attacks against Americans, on our soil. The longer we hang on in there, the more likely this will happen.
If the Iraqis really want democracy, then it will happen, but not on Coalition terms at gunpoint. Let them take care of their own business. Yes, some chaos will happen while the three main tribal groups jockey for power. Is it really worth the $1 BILLION per week of our money and the deterioration of security that will result from a continued US presence there?
Well, since SJO started this thread on US withdrawl, let's take her definition: "When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. "
US troops, under UN command will still be US troops to Iraqis. They will wear US uniforms, use US weapons, wear US flags etc. So, as SJo stated, a withdrawl of the US contingent, means the entire US contingent. A US withdrawl, with US troops left behind under UN command, while legally might consitute a US withdrawl, few people would view it as a real US withdrawl, certainly not SJO or the Iraqis.
So, to continue this line of thought, the US unilateral war against Iraq have made it impossible to achieve REAL peace as long as US troops are present in Iraq. And since UN sans US isn´t up to the job there really isn´t any way to reach real peace in Iraq with foreign troops present. Unless, of course, warp drive is reached within the next couple of month and the visiting aliens agree to help up out with a contigent of non-US, non-rest-of-earth troops.
Comments
Originally posted by neutrino23
I think we'll leave anytime the government decides they want out and concocts a cover story to match. The administration has come out with a string of reasons for invading Iraq among them WMDs, Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, various UN resolutions, Saddam was a bad guy and liberation of the Iraqi people.
So none of these reasons were legitimate?
Originally posted by neutrino23
There is a strong chance that the country will devolve into civil war and little chance that it will evolve into a functioning democracy. In other words, I think it is a mess.
What were the chances for freedom and/or democracy before the war?
The Iraq is a mess tack seems to be the approach the media and the left wingers are taking.
Originally posted by neutrino23
Even with our troops there something like 5,000 Iraqis are dying a month. This is far higher than the roughly 2,000 a month who were dying under Saddam. So much for the value of our security forces. I just don't see how we are going to force peace on those people at the end of a gun barrel. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not next year, not in ten years.
Where are you getting these numbers?
[
Where are you getting these numbers? [/B]
I haven't heard anything approaching that number. The US military does not make any estimates of either military or civilian casualties amongst the enemy, so other organizations have taken on the task.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net has a maximum of >11,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces since the war started 15 months back. That averages out to 733 people each month, or about 24 each day. If one adds Iraqi military or insurgents into the picture, then it's realistic to double that total and rate. But 5000 a month sounds like a large exaggeration.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek/
This looks totally damning as regards the coalition's "welcome". The talk about "liberating the Iraqi people" or "installing democracy" has been proven to be as phoney as Bush's pre-election promise of "no nation building". After 15 months of chaos, looting, terrorism where there wasn't any before, lack of power, water and basic services, broken promises, Saddam-like conduct by the occupation, criminal appointees by the coalition, and more. The Iraqi people are now absolutely sick of our presence, (as well as the insane policy makers who started and continue to fuel this debacle). Perhaps it may be a good idea to get the hell out of there before any new terrorist groups hellbent on revenge against the USA get organized and funded well enough to carry out retaliatory attacks against Americans, on our soil. The longer we hang on in there, the more likely this will happen.
If the Iraqis really want democracy, then it will happen, but not on Coalition terms at gunpoint. Let them take care of their own business. Yes, some chaos will happen while the three main tribal groups jockey for power. Is it really worth the $1 BILLION per week of our money and the deterioration of security that will result from a continued US presence there?
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, since SJO started this thread on US withdrawl, let's take her definition: "When you say "withdrawal", I take it that means the entire US military contingent? Anything less than that will be seen as "continued occupation" and will invite further unrest and retaliation. "
US troops, under UN command will still be US troops to Iraqis. They will wear US uniforms, use US weapons, wear US flags etc. So, as SJo stated, a withdrawl of the US contingent, means the entire US contingent. A US withdrawl, with US troops left behind under UN command, while legally might consitute a US withdrawl, few people would view it as a real US withdrawl, certainly not SJO or the Iraqis.
So, to continue this line of thought, the US unilateral war against Iraq have made it impossible to achieve REAL peace as long as US troops are present in Iraq. And since UN sans US isn´t up to the job there really isn´t any way to reach real peace in Iraq with foreign troops present. Unless, of course, warp drive is reached within the next couple of month and the visiting aliens agree to help up out with a contigent of non-US, non-rest-of-earth troops.