Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security? - Page 4




 
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
 
June 17th, 2006  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
The underlying thing is that if the United States leaves Iraq and it falls into bloody anarchy, the world and history will say it's our fault. Its not our fault that Sunni, Shiite and Kurds despise each other so much. It's not our fault that they want so badly to kill each other. But it becomes our fault by default, cuz we're the United States.

I think that we live in a world of too much negativity and too little patience. The United States, France, the United Kingdom and the USSR occupied Germany for a long time: 1945-1949. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...nes_in_Germany

The United States occupied Japan for even longer: 1945-1952. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...nes_in_Germany

Why? Well, for one thing, because the governments of both nations had been completely destroyed. Because in both cases, the prior governments were Military Dictatorships. That was the sort of thing that the Japanese and German people had gotten used to. If you just pack up and leave the moment the war is over, then the same thing is going to tend to create itself. Especially in the case of Japan, the concept of the equality rights of common people to the nobles ... it just didn't exist. Democracy and human rights were ridiculed as completely "un-Japanese" by the ruling elite, yet the common people quickly embraced them. Without the US Troops there, would Democracy have taken hold, or would the superior minded aristocrats of Japan have dragged their nation back to outdated "traditional" systems?

Occupation of Japan and Germany thereafter is not really as useful to point out since it was for a completely different reason. The Communist Threat made such things a necessity and I doubt that the peoples of those nations regret the fact that they were not overrun by conquering Russian or Chinese forces.

The point is, Iraq is very comparable to Japan after World War II. They as a people have no historical basis for Democratic rule. And because the several ethnic groups of Iraq despise one another, that puts us on completely unexplored grounds. How long do you have sit on top of such a situation? Time will tell, I suppose. The only reason that the United States is so casually accused of 'just grabbing up Iraq and never giving it up' is simple: The oil. The nations of the world are bound and determined that a.) We're only there for the oil, and b.) We're never letting go because of the oil. Monmar my be throwing something out there that is pretty far fetched in many people's minds, but the fact is that many nations out there are convinced that this kind of BS is gospel truth.
June 18th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Well of course, it must be about the oil in the eyes of countries such as France, Russia and China who saw their very profitable and illegal trade agreements with Saddam go up in smoke when the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
June 18th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The point is, Iraq is very comparable to Japan after World War II. They as a people have no historical basis for Democratic rule. And because the several ethnic groups of Iraq despise one another, that puts us on completely unexplored grounds. How long do you have sit on top of such a situation? Time will tell, I suppose. The only reason that the United States is so casually accused of 'just grabbing up Iraq and never giving it up' is simple: The oil. The nations of the world are bound and determined that a.) We're only there for the oil, and b.) We're never letting go because of the oil. Monmar my be throwing something out there that is pretty far fetched in many people's minds, but the fact is that many nations out there are convinced that this kind of BS is gospel truth.
I agree with everything you said but I just wanted to point something out about the Japanese. It was very hard for the US to install a democratic government in Japan because they viewed their emperor as a god. I'd say that it's pretty damn impressive that the US managed to give power to the people and still maintain the Japanese monarchy as a ceremonial position AND still have the Japanese today as a robust economic, military, and political allie.

As for the oil in Iraq, everyone is just pissed that the US has control of it now and they don't. Believe it or not, the whole freakin world uses oil.
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
June 18th, 2006  
major liability
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The underlying thing is that if the United States leaves Iraq and it falls into bloody anarchy, the world and history will say it's our fault. Its not our fault that Sunni, Shiite and Kurds despise each other so much. It's not our fault that they want so badly to kill each other. But it becomes our fault by default, cuz we're the United States.
Actually it becomes our fault because we killed the guy keeping them oppressed and unified.
June 18th, 2006  
bulldogg
 
 
Bad, bad superpower... now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to bring self-determination to lesser life-forms.
June 18th, 2006  
major liability
 
 
Hey, I didn't say it was a bad thing, but that IS the reason we'll (rightly) be held accountable if we fail or pull out early. If we succeed, the world is a better place. If not, we've just made it worse.
June 18th, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
I'm always amazed at the reaction of some folks on this old ball of terra firma when there exists a situation that is judged as inhuman and
inherently intolerable by modern civilized societies and someone willing and able steps forward to remedy the situation. First, there is a loud outcry from those who can't, never have, and never will cross the line in the sand, for "someone do something, how can you let this go on?"

These are those who sit crosslegged on the ground and engage in self righteous pow-wows about how someone should deal with this problem diplomatically while rape, beheadings, and worse is happening as they talk.

Even after diplomacy fails and the threat spreads like a disease to other countries throughout the world, the pow-wow goes on and the scimitar swings and even more heads roll.

As for the argument that a superpower is the only one who can stop the carnage and danger to the rest of society on earth, we should have never let the situation degrade to that point. There are many rich, armed, and qualified countries that could have made a point militarily that this kind of behavior can't continue.

Then, when the iron fist is used to stop the inhumanity of the strong against the weak, the mantra begins that there has to be an agenda by this monstrous force, they want to pillage the ones they have destroyed. Yes, that's it, their sacrifices made by their military men and women are a ploy of some kind for the selfish reasons of politics and plunder. Then, the liberator becomes the occupation force and the murderers become helpless partisans just doing their job.

America and the coalition of the willing stepped across that line knowing full well there would be sacrifices made as there are in every war. But these are the kind of people who will go when called and die if necessary to help the helpless while they are sniped at from behind by the very people who beat their breasts and wailed that "someone has to do something." There has always been that sort of people and there always will be, but we can never let their ingrained defeatism guide the hand of freedom or it will disappear from this earth.
June 19th, 2006  
WarMachine
 
 
Then why didn't we invade sudan, north korea or lebanon, i think the people there could use our help a lot more than iraqis ever did.
June 19th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Because if say we sent troops into Lebanon then people like yourself, WarMachine, would say "Why didn't we invade Sudan, North Korea or Iraq?" because well that's just what you do.

Although the issue of invading North Korea can be answered with one short word: China.
June 19th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Because if say we sent troops into Lebanon then people like yourself, WarMachine, would say "Why didn't we invade Sudan, North Korea or Iraq?" because well that's just what you do.

Although the issue of invading North Korea can be answered with one short word: China.
I agree with you about the North Korea one. China is pretty much NK's biggest allie; whatever they say, NK listens. I think China is using NK against the US in various political agendas (UN reforms, Taiwan, trade, etc.). It's the good ol' dangling bait trick. The funny thing is that when NK gets too out of hand and the US decides to strike, China will probably be the first to defend NK even though China could have stopped this from snowballing years ago.
 


Similar Topics
New Rules In Iraq May Make It Tougher To Keep Insurgents
Rising security costs curtail Iraq reconstruction
Iraq rebuilding slows as U.S. money for projects dries up
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein
PM to send more troops to Iraq