 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Taylor Anthony Gizzi
Joined: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 25
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Liberty Hill
|
[Poll] Why we should stay in Iraq
November 14, 2003 - 11:53 AM
|
|
The United States has only declared war nine times in history. We only go to war if there is probable cause. We need to stay in Iraq or they will become like Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Should We Stay In Iraq
Yes
(11 votes for 55%)
No
(9 votes for 45%)
Undecided
(0 votes for 0%)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
November 15, 2003 - 03:34 AM
|
|
I think it all depends on 'for how long?' and 'in what capacity?'
The U.S administrators seem to be doing a pretty good job securing business ventures for multinational companies within the country, such as the recently secured telecommunications deal for the new age mobile phone network, but doing a pretty lousy job at keeping the lights on.
I think their success to date is rather the result of what happens when you don't have adequate planning for post-war Iraq, let alone post-war anywhere. It's not as if they were expecting a lengthy conflict either, though no doubt they were surprised as to how easily Baghdad fell.
Winning over the population from the first day of the occupation should have gotten a hell of a lot more attention than landing Presidents on Aircraft Carrier's, even if you can't remember who put the sign up.
I do not wish to suggest that this 'intervention' (to put it softly) should have gone ahead. Years of sanctions hailed by the U.S made the majority of Iraqi's dependant on Hussein's provisions of food and public services. Since the soldiers did a better job of shooting up the populace than it did of feeding them, the U.S will be left to buy it's way out...
Just watch.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Moss
Joined: May 7, 2002
Posts: 79 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
November 15, 2003 - 04:36 AM
|
|
"The United States has only declared war nine times in history"
Yep, but they've used their military to intervene in the affairs of other nations more than 100 times. That's not necessarily a bad thing - but I thought it was an interesting comparison to draw.
I agree with Mike, but would go further by saying that the US, having got the world into this situation, is obliged to lead us out. Does that mean the US should do it all themselves? I don't think so. Rather, the US should act as the beacon for freedom and hope that it proclaims to be, coordinating the transition to a multi-lateral restrucuring program that involves the transfer of soverignty back to a genuinely democratic and internally controlled Iraqi adminisration.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Irene Stoeckl
Joined: Jul 9, 2002
Posts: 14 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 35
Country: Austria
Province/State: Wien
City: Vienna
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
November 15, 2003 - 06:45 AM
|
|
quoting TaylorGizzi187:
"The United States has only declared war nine times in history. We only go to war if there is probable cause. We need to stay in Iraq or they will become like Afghanistan in the 1980s."
The US might have only declared war nine times in history but has conducted war without declaring war since the Second World War around 130 times. Declaring war and conducting war are two pairs of shoes. Further. Who is determining whether it is a probable cause?
Pulling out of Iraq at the moment would probably not improve the situation but conducting the war and applying the strategy for reconstruction as it was done in Iraq was probably the cause for all those problems. All the motives that were originally "guessed" by the world community for the US going to war in Iraq seemed to be true since the real winners of this war are the buddies of the Bush administration. Maybe the US administration should first of all change their attitude towards the rest of the world. The world is not full of dummies.
Because the first thing you learn in introductory courses about strategic studies is that you need to have an exit strategy in an armed conflict and you need to think of what comes afterwards. The US has not done either of those aspects in an effective, professional way and has underestimated the other side.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ian Beacock
Joined: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Chatham
|
The US DOES need to stay in Iraq...
November 16, 2003 - 07:03 AM
|
|
I think that the United States definitely does need to stay in Iraq. Whether or not it becomes another Vietnam and they see the need to hightail it out of there as soon as they can (as we are seeing) does not figure in. In invading the country and destroying all that remained of its already dilapidated infrastructure, the United States has a commitment to rebuilding that country completely, not doing a half-way job and getting out in time for the next election.
If we look at the Japanese example, the United States were there ten or fifteen years - resulting in a strong, peaceful democracy here fifty years down the road. Indeed, Japan already had fairly complex infrastructure and was a relatively industrialized country - by all rights, the States should stay in Iraq for about twenty or twenty-five years to do the job right. They owe that much to the Iraqi people. But they should really start preparing the Iraqis to manage their own destiny by involving them implicitly in decision-making and reconstruction efforts.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Eric M. Acha
Joined: Sep 17, 2003
Posts: 4 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Austria
Province/State: Wien
City: Vienna
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
July 16, 2004 - 01:23 AM
|
|
I am glad to know we all agree on the fact that America is to stay in Iraq, and should lead in the reconstruction of Iraq.
But we must at the same time accept that it is not an obligation for the Americans to do the impossible when the people of iraq themselves are not ready to take things into their own hands. America did the great job of removing the brutal Baath party from power, with the good intentions of planting the seed of democracy into this country, as it has done in many other countries.( we can not repudiate this because history has got all the facts).
The case with Japan as my fellow friend mentioned ealier worked because the people accepted the need for change and collaborated with the occupying forces.
But when the people of iraq can't help crack down on these deadly insurgents who are now declearing a holy war against the ocupying forces, then their future is blured to forcast.
But however bad the situation is, America is still committed in rebuilding irak, and invites all peace loving nation to move in and help in the process of democratization.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Lexi
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
?????????
July 22, 2004 - 08:18 AM
|
|
"America did the great job of removing the brutal Baath party from power, with the good intentions of planting the seed of democracy into this country, as it has done in many other countries."
please explain...I am not following this thought process. i can only remeber us planting the seed of capitalism that lead to exploitation of people by american business in places like puerto rico, cuba, mexico, china....
Saying that we only go to war with probable cause seems ludicrous considering that there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq (which supposedly was our 'probable cause') and so far we have gained nothing from this occupation except for loss of american lives along with iraqi civilians and a bad rep around the world. plus i suppose that its nice that we removed a dictator that was no threat to us. sadaam doens't pick on the big cats, only the little mice. in all 25 or so years he was in power he never once attacked a super power. and why would he? he would have nothing to gain by blowing us up because his entire country and army would have been destroyed with one of our weapons in retaliation. oh and another thing we gained from this occupation that i forgot to mention, the loss of our civil liberties with the 'patriot act'. like if you have ideas that differs from what the govt wants you to have you are un-american. the irony of that is that democracy encourages the type of dissention that our govt is so furtively trying to supress.
well anyway, thats my view on our occupation. i do think that we need to stay in the county and help rebuild it though. if we didn't that would defeat the purpose of the war.
peace,
lexi
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Amany
Joined: Oct 5, 2002
Posts: 26 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 30
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Iskandariyah
City: Alexandria
|
9 times in less than 250 years.
July 22, 2004 - 08:43 AM
|
|
well may be it was only nine times but in how long. there is a state called usa only since 1774. and is that considered to be generous. you have headeche so let me cut your head off to decrease the pain. you want to say that iraq today is better .saddam is a criminal but for some one like him in a 3rd world class with dectatorate authority we can say it happenes. but for Bush and Blaire no !! they are roling usa and uk who are who they are as the most democratic spots of the world.
of course u should go out as soon as possible it's a swap and every one is gonna get down into it not only the poor iraqi people. may god help them and help us.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
July 22, 2004 - 09:30 AM
|
|
I think what you all are missing is that if we stay in Iraq or not should have a hell of alot to do with what the Iraqi leadership feels after they have been properly elected.
I certainly agree that we need to see them on stable footing - frankly I am not worried they will turn into another Afghanistan because they have so much more in terms of the education of the population and the abundance of valuable natural rescources.
I am more concerned they would become like Germany after WW1 - you know what I mean?
As far as the Canadian kid who said we have to be there for 25 years - are you kidding - no we don't owe them that kind of commitment - this is not 1945 - things can move along faster - communication if far greater so democracy is takes less time.
Also - I just don't feel we owe them that much - certainly we owe it to them to put them back on their feet - and it is my hope that we will be freinds when it is all said and done.
But it isn't like we removed a democratically elected government which was equitable to its citizens - we removed a dictator - so why would we owe them 25 years? Why would they want to live in occupation for 25 years?
Sorry bro but we have poor people at home that need attention.
Greengirl - what in the world are you talking about - planting the seeds of capitalism in Cuba and China? these are Communist countries - still. We aren't exploiting Cubans - we don't even trade with them.
finnally - for those who don't think the Iraqis are ready for democracy - yes they are. 70% of them support the new government. They are a smart and tough people - there will undoubtably be a problem with insurgancy for some time - but it will stabilize - the insurgancy is not that widespread - one major city (Fallujah) - and a few towns like Najef - and even there it is not a majority of people.
The Iraqis I think understand the opportunity being presented to them.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Eric M. Acha
Joined: Sep 17, 2003
Posts: 4 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Austria
Province/State: Wien
City: Vienna
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
July 27, 2004 - 07:51 AM
|
|
"please explain...I am not following this thought process. i can only remeber us planting the seed of capitalism that lead to exploitation of people by american business in places like puerto rico, cuba, mexico, china...."
If you are repudiating the fact that America has done much in the process of democratizing this world, then you are merely telling me to question the Authors of my old History Books. I believe in this books and all the 1914 and 1945 stories they wrote.
Then I needed not read most of the recent history, for I am living most of it.
I am gratefull you did the great job of naming just "puerto rico, cuba, mexico, china" and leaving the true demorcatic soceities such as Europe. The Europeans know this History and will continue to thank America for leberating them.
You talked of Exploitation as alawys being the end fate of liberation, this raised my eyebrows over the Bosnians and their resources! I wonder the gains America reaped from Bosnia after their Nato lead campaign in 1998.
If capitalism is ruining the Cuban street, it's simple. Fidel Castro failed his soceity and have since then decided to live in Isolation. He is failure and cementing his brains to power automatically makes the soceity a failure.
Peace,
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ashraf
Joined: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 628 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 39
Country: Saudi Arabia
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
August 30, 2004 - 04:13 AM
|
|
The fate of a nation should be left for the people to decide. Whether it was Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, or the South Pole..the US has no right to interfere in other nations!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danny Sweeney
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 214 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
August 30, 2004 - 05:19 AM
|
|
Personally i don't feel they should be there in the first place - but thats a different debate.
Now that Americans are there if they pulled out for no reason it would leave a huge gap and a power struggle would probably take place.
They should be looking to leave as soon as it is possible and withdrawing forces as soon as they can.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Waleed
Joined: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 23 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 36
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Cairo
|
You Stay Becuse of Oil
August 30, 2004 - 05:37 AM
|
|
Today, much of the world is convinced the Bush Administration did not wage war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein because of threat from weapons of mass destruction, nor from terror dangers. Still a puzzle, however, is why Washington would risk so much in terms of relations with its allies and the entire world, to occupy Iraq. There is compelling evidence that oil and geopolitics lie at the heart of the still-hidden reasons for the military action in Iraq.
It is increasingly clear that the US occupation of Iraq is about control of global oil resources. Control, however, in a situation where world oil supplies are far more limited than most of the world has been led to believe. If the following is accurate, the Iraq war is but the first in a major battle over global energy resources, a battle which will be more intense than any oil war to date. The stakes are highest. It is about fixing who will get how much oil for their economy at what price and who not. Never has such a choke-hold on the world economy been in the hands of one power. After occupation of Iraq it appears it is.
The era of cheap, abundant oil, which has supported world economic growth for more than three quarters of a century, is most probably at or past its absolute peak, according to leading independent oil geologists. If this analysis is accurate, the economic and social consequences will be staggering. This reality is being hidden from general discussion by the oil multinationals and major government agencies, above all by the United States government. Oil companies have a vested interest in hiding the truth in order to keep the price of getting new oil as low as possible. The US government has a strategic interest in keeping the rest of the world from realising how critical the problem has become.
According to the best estimates of a number of respected international geologists, including the French Petroleum Institute, Colorado School of Mines, Uppsala University and Petroconsultants in Geneva, the world will likely feel the impact of the peaking of most of the present large oil fields and the dramatic fall in supply by the end of this decade, 2010, or possibly even several years sooner. At that point, the world economy will face shocks which will make the oil price rises of the 1970's pale by contrast. In other words, we face a major global energy shortage for the prime fuel of our entire economy within about seven years.
Peak oil
The problem in oil production is not how much reserves are underground. There the numbers are more encouraging. The problem comes when large oilfields such as Prudhoe Bay Alaska or the fields of the North Sea pass their peak output. Much like a bell curve, oil fields rise to a maximum output or peak. The peak is the point when half the oil has been extracted. In terms of reserves remaining it may seem there is still ample oil. But it is not as rosy as it seems. The oil production may hold at the peak output for a number of years before beginning a slow decline. Once the peak is past however, the decline can become very rapid. Past the peak, there is still oil, but each barrel becomes more difficult to exploit, and more costly, as internal well pressures decline or other problems make recovery more expensive for each barrel. The oil is there but not at all easy to extract. The cost of each barrel past peak is increasingly higher as artificial means are employed to extract it. After a certain point it becomes uneconomical to continue to try to extract this peak oil.
Because most oil companies and agencies such as the US Department of Energy speak not of peak oil, but of total reserves, the world has a false sense of energy supply security. The truth is anything but secure
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Howa
Joined: Sep 9, 2004
Posts: 11 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Other, 101
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: City
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
September 9, 2004 - 10:45 AM
|
|
I agree w/ brother Palestenian! Why the heck is America so nosy??? Dude!!!!! Leave Iraq a lone!!!!
Plus..TAYLORGIZZI ...how can this >> "they will become like Afghanistan in the 1980s." happen????
And wut if they do??
And how did Afghanistan "become"???
And wut are you talkin about?
Shall u explain yourself pal?
~_~
>.>
<.<
Sarsari
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Howa
Joined: Sep 9, 2004
Posts: 11 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Other, 101
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: City
|
Re: Why we should stay in Iraq
September 9, 2004 - 10:59 AM
|
|
Let me add something here
The US has a lengthy history of trying to intervene in the Middle East. They have not always handled it well. In fact the US may have been responsable for the rise in Islamic Fundamentalism as far back as 1953.
quote:
After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.(3) The United States, as the heir to British imperialism in the region, has been a frequent object of suspicion. Since the end of World War II, the United States, like the European colonial powers before it, has been unable to resist becoming entangled in the region's political conflicts. Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.
So why all the interest in the ME? The simple answer to this question is Oil. The US became interested int eh ME in the 1920. Two US companies won the rights to explore Saudi in the 30's and found oil there in 1938.
quote:
Subsequently, as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as the chief Western power in the region. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, American gains were British (and French) losses. Originally, the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the agreement voided. When the awakening countries of the Middle East asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and, through that control, Washington's claim to world leadership. The U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden to the United States, and U.S. aid given to "moderate," pro-Western Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always the meaning of the term "regional stability."
The biggest threat to the the US's access to the oil was not so much the Soviet influence, but rather the rise of Arab and Irannian nationalism. A 1977 congressional report stated that "The most serious threats may emanate from internal changes in the gulf states". In this light, Washington has always taken seriously the threat that nationalism brings to the stabilty of the region.
quote:
The rise of Arab nationalism or Muslim fundamentalism, or any other force not sufficiently obeisant to U.S. interests, would threaten American economic and worldwide political leadership (and the profits of state-connected corporations). As Tucker wrote, "It is the Gulf that forms the indispen-sable key to the defense of the American global position." Thus, any challenge to U.S. hegemony had to be prevented or at least contained.As Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said privately during the Lebanese crisis in 1958, the United States "must regard Arab nationalism as a flood which is running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it, but we could put sand bags around positions we must protect--the first group being Israel and Lebanon and the second being the oil positions around the Persian Gulf."
During the second world war, the oil reserves of the ME became more important as the US became concerned that its reserves were running out.
quote:
During the war the U.S. government and two American oil companies worked together to win concessions in Iran. That action brought the United States into rivalry with Great Britain and the Soviet Union, both of which had dominated Iran in the interwar period, though Reza Shah Pahlavi had succeeded in reducing foreign influence from its previous level. (Great Britain had its oil concession through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.) With the Soviets and the British occupying Iran and both favoring the decentralization of that country, the Tehran government sought to involve American oil interests as a way of enlisting U.S. support for Iran's security and stability. The U.S. government aided the companies, by providing facilities for transportation and communication along with other help, and dispatched advisers to the Iranian regime. In 1942 Wallace Murray, a State Department official involved in Near Eastern affairs, said, "We shall soon be in the position of actually 'running' Iran through an impressive body of American advisers." The relationship between the U.S. government and large American oil companies remained close throughout the war, despite differences over such issues as the government's part ownership of commercial enterprises. The oil companies and the State Department coordinated their efforts to ensure themselves a major role in the Middle East. One indication of that coordination was the appointment in 1941 of Max Thornburg as the State Department's petroleum adviser. The United States was a comparative latecomer to the region, but it intended to make up for lost time. Thornburg had been an official with the Bahrain Petroleum Company, a Middle Eastern subsidiary of Socal (Standard Oil of Cali-fornia) and Texaco. Throughout his government tenure, he maintained ties with the company and even collected a $29,000 annual salary from the oil company.
The US's position vis a vie oil can be found in a paper prepared in 1953 for the, Defense, Interior, and National Security Council, that states that "American oil operations are, for all practical purposes, instruments of our foreign policy." This is the attitude and guiding philosphy of US Foreign policy in the ME since the end of the second world war.
**Also consider the American interest in the geographically important area of the ME for trade and access!
Sarsari
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
