Nonsense. We can leave any time we like. And staying there forever is politically and economically impractical. And we will never “have to” go there again, any more than we “had to” go there in the first place.
I’m going to hope that last part was a joke.
Democrats voted for the war as well - why should they be exempt from a draft? And what about independents?
Why, even in jest, should a draft apply to one particular political group only?
No, we can’t just leave any time we like. This statement is factually incorrect, as well as both morally and legally ignorant.
At a minimum, we will need to transition the troops out. it’s not like they can all just get on an airliner and come home at once. Secondly, we have treaties to honor with the Iraqi government; from a legal standpoint, regardless of your opinion of the Iraqi government, we cannot legally simply take our toys and go home. There is a moral argument here which is what I am talking about most - if we leave, the country will devolve into chaos as was proven by the efficacy of the surge in largely quelling the violence there. I would be willing to bet that the majority of the American people will not support simply pulling out without a transition plan of some description, which is exactly what I am suggesting we need.
Finally, considering Iraq sits on a decent proportion of the world’s oil supply, I do think we’d have to go back in there at some point in future to help safeguard that supply if we don’t leave behind a viable Iraqi government now. I think it’s naive to think we should put our own national geopolitical future at risk by jeopardizing our access to the supply of a quarter of the world’s petroleum reserves. Whether or not petroleum is a intelligent long-term strategy for the US’s energy needs or not is moot; we are where we are and we need to secure our future resource needs.
Of course, this does mean that alternative energy is the only way to truly drain the swamp of fundamentalist radicals, but that’s another topic entirely and I do not wish to hijack the OP.
Mr Moto - mine at least was a crack at all the talking(air)-heads, mostly Republican or Conservative in nature, who seem to support the war but find a raft of excuses on why they personally or their children or dependents shouldn’t have to serve. I’d have thought that was rather obvious, really.
Us getting into Iraq is like a man falling into quicksand ,we’ll never get out without loss of face .
I’m no airy fairy pacifist but we were totally lied to about the reasons for going in,Its down to Bush but HMG aided and abetted him.
I honestly dont know how you sleep at night Dubya ,unless of course you are incredibly thick which I suspect might well be the case.
I know quite well that the soldiers can’t just teleport out; that’s just nitpicking. As for morality, we have no moral right to be there at all. And as far as the law goes, it has no moral force and no practically effect. The only real "law involved is the law of the jungle; we have more force, so we can do what we wan - otherwise, we wouldn’t be there at all. Neither we nor anyone has any obligations to the collaborationist Iraqi government; being set up under us, it is automatically illegitimate, and any laws passed by it or involving it have no moral for, and no obligation of being obeyed.
THAT is highly arguable, as has been pointed out many times before.
To quote an Iraqi from before the war, “What do they think we are going to do with it, drink it ?” You are using “safeguard” as a euphemism for “steal”. And we will NEVER be able to leave behind a viable government; any government that takes power under us will be tainted.
Too damned bad. It’s not our right to conquer and slaughter for our own profit. America has proven that it doesn’t DESERVE to have it’s “geopolitical future” preserved. Especially since for America, that means enforcing it’s “right” to devastate and pillage and slaughter anyplace it feels like.
Because they’re the ones who pushed and clamored for it. They own it. Republicans have no business even offering a share of the blame to Democrats. Left to their own devices, the Democrats would have done no shuch thing.
There was never a vote for the war or * to go* to war in Iraq. The vote was to allow the President–and by extension his party and his supporters–to get their way. It was their way. They wanted it; they demanded it.
And those Democrats who did vote for the authorization were not responding to pressure from the Left. And I’m not talking about a handful of senators, I’m talking about the rank and file. We’re not in Iraq because of liberals, we’re in Iraq because of conservatives. Because of the kind of people they are. Anyone who wasn’t on board for this military adventure was labled a traitor. The Right is responsible and the Right should be held responsible.
And besides, the Coalition Provisional Authority was able to ensure that only loyal conservatives got hired by asking applicants their views on abortion, who they voted for, etc. The same principle can be applied to the draft.
If you own a copy of Taking the Long Way by the Dixie Chicks, you’re exempt.
I may be joking, but I’m not smiling. :mad:
Oh, poor you.
You know, I’m a member of the VFW today because of decisions by a Democratic president, and I sure ain’t no Democrat.
Were I to apply your standards to my life, I’d likely end up as bitter as you are.
No thanks.
OK. As I said, I agree with you there - we had no moral right to go in in the first place. But I reckon you’re never going to agree with me that we, regardless of how we got there, have an obligation to stay until we can safely leave and not leave total chaos in our wake.
Statements of opinion have little impact. I’m looking for facts. Got any? We have agreements already in place, active until 2008, , and are about to secure more.
And the UN seems to think the collaborationist Iraqi government, as you call them, is legitimate. As well as lots of other nations. So your argument is just silly. Whether or not we started the ball rolling, the people of Iraq elected their leaders Democratically and fairly. Those leaders have chosen to have us stay, and we’ve signed treaties to that effect with the Iraqi government. The law is the law.
Well for those of us without your encyclopedic memory, cite? Lots of places show the violence reducing in Iraq since the start of the surge.
Cite 1 cite 2 cite 3
No, I mean exactly what I say. Our economy depends on access to oil. We will not allow our economy to become hostage to another nation.
Yes, it is - although any reasonable person would avoid words like pillage and slaughter when seeking reasoned discourse. If, as you say, we are subject only to the law of the jungle, then we absolutely have the right to defend ourselves and to knock over any other country we choose and can knock over. If not the law of the jungle, we have satisfied the legal punctilio required to wage war under international law. So your own statements defeat you - either you are outraged because there is no law but the law of the jungle, or you’re outraged because we’re breaking the law. You’re incorrect in either case.
And to be so naive as to believe that every country in the world, with the power to do so, won’t act in it’s own best interest is a bit sad.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/17/korb-returns-iraq/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/20/wirq120.xml
There are endless stories many by military people who see the mess . It is all in how you count and this admin defines the attacks away. But before we went into Iraq the amount of bombing was zero. Start with that figure and see how the people living there feel.
A view from one of the candidates:
Any guesses who said that? Hint: The candidate’s foreign policy adviser adds:
Caveat emptor, as always.
Plus who ever discusses the 150,000 contract soldiers. When do they come out.? When we run out of money.?
Given this, I must ask: should the USSR have continued to occupy Afghanistan? Or what about the French in Algeria? If you answer yes, our views on brutal occupations, guerilla wars, self interest, and the idea of states being moral agents couldn’t be more diametrically opposed. If no, what characteristics of these conflicts, in your mind, separate them from our current occupation in Iraq which warrants such a different conclusion?
Alegeria - French attempting to keep a colony against it’s will.
Afghanistan - USSR invaded with force
Iraq has similarities to Afghanistan, but considering we’re now there at the invitation of the Government, I believe it’s a different ball of wax entirely.
That’s the definition of contract soldier isn’t it? They’ll be there until they stop getting paid to be there.
Although the events which led to the introduction of Soviet forces into Afghanistan is complex, it was initially in part at the behest of the puppet communist government in Kabul. Of course, said government was in the throes of popular revolution from the rest of the country and after the USSR left the collaborators were summarily executed as traitors to the Afghan people and all that. Maybe that’s why they were so gung ho about requesting Soviet armor to keep the enemy at the gate? Let’s not pretend Iraq invited us to invade and occupy them and we’ll let this angle slide.
But after the USSR left Afghanistan was thrust into a swirling vortex of chaos. Lots of civil war, lots of death, and then the Taliban won. It’s still really fucked up right now. So the USSR shouldn’t have left, right? They abandoned their moral responsibility. It did create turmoil and bloodshed. Probably mostly due to the USSR’s actions but hey, you break it you own it, right? I don’t think most people would agree with that. That’s insane, isn’t it? I’m not out on a limb here, am I?
Next life lesson: leaving a rape victim in the protective custody of the rapist is like, bad.
You need to read a whole lot more about the Afghan war before being quite so snotty. If you want to actually draw a meaningful parallel, then I would suggest as an exercise for the student you go read about the early history of the Vietnam War and compare that to the Soviet adventures in Afghanistan. Then, just to round it out, compare both of the above to supporting a democratically elected government in Iraq. Then tell me we have no duty to at least attempt to stabilize and protect the only elected democracy in the region.
I said there were parallels, I did not say they were the same. So here’s some differences:
- The Soviets intentionally targeted civilians during the war. They attacked villages that had nothing to do with the war in order to ‘punish’ the people for the Mujahedin. They designed mines that looked like toys so that Afghan children would pick them up and play with them.
- The Government which ‘invited’ the Soviets in was a corrupt puppet government; it was never popularly elected, and did not represent the people.
- The Soviets pulled out and left behind a total power vacuum; the collaborationist government had no military of it’s own, it was entirely dependent on Soviet arms to keep control.
- If you’re saying the Democratically elected government of Iraq is on par with the puppet government of pre-Soviet invasion Afghanistan, as well as the US Military (and the British Military for that matter) are the same bunch of cats as the Soviets, then you’ve got a fascinating view of history which obviously I don’t agree with, although I would like to subscribe to your newsletter as your views intrigue me.
Your take on the regional history is also inaccurate. Afghanistan didn’t devolve into chaos; it was already in chaos well before the Soviets left as well as before they invaded. They say “the Mujahedin controlled the countryside,” but Mujahedin does not mean a unified group - it was a loose affiliation of warlords who only unified against a common enemy. As soon as that enemy was gone, the warlords fought over the spoils and the Taleban came out on top. But the Taleban never fully controlled the country, which is what we used when we invaded Afghanistan. Remember those cheerful dudes in the Northern Alliance who helped us? who do you think they were?
And just my opinion - being that snarky is generally seen as insulting and counter-productive when one is seeking intelligent debate, and genereally hardens opinion against you no matter how well thought out or considered your arguments are.
Just sayin’.
The Telegraph cite is from June 2007 and the ThinkProgress story is from April 2007; I’m pretty sure things have changed since then. Do you have anything more current?
The surge not working.
Got anything from more recently than August of last year?
It is true our economy “depends” on oil. Guzzling lots and lots of oil we don’t have. Seems like we better find something else for our economy to depend on…because we’re on a bus headed straight for hell no matter how you look at it.