Condemn "US occupiers in Iraq"

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"I am aware of the survey results and say that the poeple believe that "occupier" label that libs have pinned on or brave troops."


Do you think that 65% of Iraqis are "libs" too?


btw--it is NOT the Troops who are at fault for the US occupation of Iraq--and no one here has said that they are.


Don't try to pull that "You disrespect the Troops when you question Bush's war policies" BS with me.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Akiva,

Whatever your opinions on the war, we've made this crap sandwich, and now we've got to eat it.  If we leave now, the fragile infrastructure of the Iraqi democracy will be ripe for takeover from less hospitable groups than the one that was there before.  If we don't stay the course, and get them on their feet, when they do get on their feet, they are more likely to come swinging after us. 

I don't like that we're there either, but the fact remains, there we are.  Cutting and running seems to be the newest American value, but we will pay for it if we do on this one.  I guarantee it. 

all

[WorldWarrior]

All--hi--I'll be back later to discuss the ideas and new book just out by General Sir Michael Rose--who was head of the British Forces in Iraq.

He has some very practical ideas about what has happened in Iraq because of our occupying it--he was there after all--and some very good ideas on how to get out.


His book compares Bush's Iraq War with George III's war against the Colonies.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

All--hi--I'll be back later to discuss the ideas and new book just out by General Sir Michael Rose--who was head of the British Forces in Iraq.

He has some very practical ideas about what has happened in Iraq because of our occupying it--he was there after all--and some very good ideas on how to get out.


His book compares Bush's Iraq War with George III's war against the Colonies.

I don't doubt that improvements could be made on policy.  I'm certainly no defender of dubbya.  But if the only choices are staying the course, or cut and run, we need to stay the course. They're not ready yet. 

all

[Akiva]

Akiva,

Whatever your opinions on the war, we've made this crap sandwich, and now we've got to eat it.  If we leave now, the fragile infrastructure of the Iraqi democracy will be ripe for takeover from less hospitable groups than the one that was there before.  If we don't stay the course, and get them on their feet, when they do get on their feet, they are more likely to come swinging after us. 

I don't like that we're there either, but the fact remains, there we are.  Cutting and running seems to be the newest American value, but we will pay for it if we do on this one.  I guarantee it. 

all

Despite what anyone says, I seriously doubt any of the presidential candidates would immediately pullout of Iraq-- I just do not believe it to be logistically possible.  However, I believe that we could make certain concessions by allowing international peacekeeping forces and humanitarian groups into the country. Everything should be made as transparent as possible-- schools should be opened, and people given jobs to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.  We need to recognize the illegalities of our actions there, and leave as soon as possible. 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Despite what anyone says, I seriously doubt any of the presidential candidates would immediately pullout of Iraq-- I just do not believe it to be logistically possible.  However, I believe that we could make certain concessions by allowing international peacekeeping forces and humanitarian groups into the country. Everything should be made as transparent as possible-- schools should be opened, and people given jobs to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.  We need to recognize the illegalities of our actions there, and leave as soon as possible. 

War is war, and is neither cuddly, nor nice.  Sometimes you have to do things that are considered "illegal" because the choice is your life, or the lives of you cohorts.  Each side does what it takes to win. 

Other than that, I agree.

all

[Akiva]

War is war, and is neither cuddly, nor nice.  Sometimes you have to do things that are considered "illegal" because the choice is your life, or the lives of you cohorts.  Each side does what it takes to win. 

What makes your life and the lives of your cohorts more valuable than the lives of the opposition?  Our illegal occupation of Iraq was totally unnecessary.  The evidence used to persuade Congress to authorize military force was a calculated fabrication.  Therefore, in this case, illegal actions were not necessary. 

Furthermore, the international laws in the Geneva and Vienna Conventions were constructed around the idea that the occupation of a nation is permissible when humanitarian situations necessitate military intervention.  No case was brought before any sovereign legislative body advocating the invasion of Iraq due to humanitarian crises, and the recent right-wing attempt to paint the Iraqi invasion as a humanitarian intervention is but a smear tactic against those who now (or ever) disagree with American policies there. 

America cannot "win" this war-- I am not aware of any historical instance where ideological exportation by force had significantly satisfactory results for the exporter. 

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

What makes your life and the lives of your cohorts more valuable than the lives of the opposition?

Survival instinct.  You do what you have to do to survive at that moment.  Just so you know, I'm not a soldier, but I count many of them as friends. 

all

[Akiva]

That does not make one's life more valuable than another, it is simply a justification for murder.  You must realize that the Iraqis have the same justification for killing Americans-- only their justification is more warranted, as we are the invaders of their homeland.  Killing is senseless, and the degradation of human life abominable on both sides-- but it is inexcusable to assert that the life of one is more valuable than the life of the other. 

[Acumen]

All--hi--I'll be back later to discuss the ideas and new book just out by General Sir Michael Rose--who was head of the British Forces in Iraq.

He has some very practical ideas about what has happened in Iraq because of our occupying it--he was there after all--and some very good ideas on how to get out.


His book compares Bush's Iraq War with George III's war against the Colonies.

Oh, I can't wait.  Don't be gone long, ya hear.

[Acumen]

Akiva,

Whatever your opinions on the war, we've made this crap sandwich, and now we've got to eat it.  If we leave now, the fragile infrastructure of the Iraqi democracy will be ripe for takeover from less hospitable groups than the one that was there before.  If we don't stay the course, and get them on their feet, when they do get on their feet, they are more likely to come swinging after us. 

I don't like that we're there either, but the fact remains, there we are.  Cutting and running seems to be the newest American value, but we will pay for it if we do on this one.  I guarantee it. 

all

Despite what anyone says, I seriously doubt any of the presidential candidates would immediately pullout of Iraq-- I just do not believe it to be logistically possible.  However, I believe that we could make certain concessions by allowing international peacekeeping forces and humanitarian groups into the country. Everything should be made as transparent as possible-- schools should be opened, and people given jobs to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.  We need to recognize the illegalities of our actions there, and leave as soon as possible. 

Peacekeeping forces won't cut it.  Changing military management with this much investment would be equivalent spitting on our dead, telling the world we don't have resolve, and allowing terrorists to be emboldened to attack us on our soil again.  Currently, there isn't a good enough reason to leave Iraq that can't be out-matched by the negative consequences of leaving. 

I agree with All (strange, I know) we live in a spoiled culture that tends to buckle when things get politically tough.

[Acumen]

That does not make one's life more valuable than another, it is simply a justification for murder.  You must realize that the Iraqis have the same justification for killing Americans-- only their justification is more warranted, as we are the invaders of their homeland.  Killing is senseless, and the degradation of human life abominable on both sides-- but it is inexcusable to assert that the life of one is more valuable than the life of the other. 

I'm going to try to be delicate here, but I tend to get irritable when people begin to ignore the absolute significance of belonging to a nation-state.  Nation-states does not have the luxury of treating all human groups equally because in doing so, we leave ourselves vulnerable to national misfortune, tragedy, or devastation.  In harsher terms, we care about us -- and we only care for other nations if and when they can reciprocate benefits that serve our national interests.  For this reason, we have borders.  For this reason, we have a military.  And for this reason, we don't socialistically give away all of our money to thwart global poverty.  There isn't a nation in existence who doesn't operate by the same international principles.

So, you can cling or hold on dear to idealistic principles of national human equality or categorically denounce all war at any time under any circumstance, but sometimes one has to select the lesser evil to protect the millions citizens we have living within our borders.

[Akiva]

Peacekeeping forces won't cut it.  Changing military management with this much investment would be equivalent spitting on our dead, telling the world we don't have resolve, and allowing terrorists to be emboldened to attack us on our soil again.  Currently, there isn't a good enough reason to leave Iraq that can't be out-matched by the negative consequences of leaving. 

I agree with All (strange, I know) we live in a spoiled culture that tends to buckle when things get politically tough.

Oh, please.  This is exactly what Bush & Co. love for people to believe; that somehow, admitting our mistakes and admitting to the rest of the world that we need help resolving this is "spitting on our dead" and "allowing terrorists to be emboldened to attack us on our soil again."  This is nothing but disgusting, neo-conservative propaganda that shames every decent American with an original thought.  People need to realize, and I believe they are beginning to, that the Iraqi War has absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks in this nation.  We are pissing on the fire by "staying the course", and everyday we illegally occupy the nation we strengthen the world's resolve against us.  

Truth be told, we live in a "spoiled culture" that thinks we are entitled to do whatever we want, whenever we want, including the sanctioning of invading sovereign nations under the auspices that they had "weapons of mass destruction" which never materialized; we are there for cultural and ideological exportation, and whatever oil we can mop up off the sand.  

If you do not consider the illegalities, the immoralities, the incitement of hatred, and the hundreds of thousands dead enough reason for our occupying armies to leave Iraq, then no, I suppose you will not find a good enough reason for us to leave.  

[Akiva]

I'm going to try to be delicate here, but I tend to get irritable when people begin to ignore the absolute significance of belonging to a nation-state.  Nation-states does not have the luxury of treating all human groups equally because in doing so, we leave ourselves vulnerable to national misfortune, tragedy, or devastation.  In harsher terms, we care about us -- and we only care for other nations if and when they can reciprocate benefits that serve our national interests.  For this reason, we have borders.  For this reason, we have a military.  And for this reason, we don't socialistically give away all of our money to thwart global poverty.  There isn't a nation in existence who doesn't operate by the same international principles.

So, you can cling or hold on dear to idealistic principles of national human equality or categorically denounce all war at any time under any circumstance, but sometimes one has to select the lesser evil to protect the millions citizens we have living within our borders.

Spare me your delicacy, because so long as the discussion revolves around human lives, I will spare you mine. 

Where I have I denounced war under any circumstance?  And have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps if we did more to eliminate global poverty, most of the issues in the world would become nonissues?  Do you think people would be out fighting and waving guns in the streets if they had the opportunity for a nine-to-five that gave them the ability to feed their families? 

How is treating one life better than the other a "lesser evil?"  How does the war in Iraq, which in case you have forgotten is the topic at hand, have anything to do with "keeping the millions in our borders safe?" 

[Faithfulee]

Argue semantics all you want, but these facts remain:

In March 2003, the United States, as the Coalition Provisional Authority, assumed a political monopoly over the State of Iraq. 

Nearly a year later, the United States began to cede power, at least ceremonially, to an interim Iraqi government (put in place by the US Administration-- just like Saddam)

In January 2005, elections were held in Iraq; yet, many of Iraq's Sunni's boycotted the vote because of US interference.  Shockingly enough, the US refused to allow international watchdog agencies in the country for the elections.

The fact that 150,000+ American troops remain in the country controlling the borders with military bases set up in the nation's capital is enough to name the presence an occupation. 

Not to mention the myriad of infractions against international law as cited in the Geneva and Vienna conventions.  I will cite these, if anyone is interested, but for now I will not take the time; most of those who cannot understand that our presence in Iraq is an illegal occupation usually do not hold ideas of international law in regard anyway.  Odd, as our nation helped draft such laws. 

You forgot to mention that we deposed a dictator, for which the people of Iraq are greatful

And you don't seem to appreciate that it is difficult to set up a democracy.  We aided the Iraqis in doing that and the elections were held and to my knowledge they were fair and acceptable to the people of Iraq.

Sure we were present in Iraq.  Do you think it would have been responsible to just depost sad man and leave the country without a government??

And yes, I think the election was held to standards acceptable to the Iraq people.

The point here is that your use of "occupier" is detrimental to the best interests of the US and I condemn it's use.

FFLee says--

"A recent survey showed that the Iraq People are pleased to be rid of sad man"

Recent surveys also show that 65+% of Iraqis want us out of their country.


FFLEe says--

"Today McCain predicted that our mission will be complete by the end of his first term"

Why would it take so long? if we can't do it in FIVE YEARS--why does he think we could do "it"--whatever "it" is--in NINE YEARS?

What is our "mission" in Iraq anyway?

Our mission is to depose a dictator and leave Iraq with a functioning democratic government that can protect the securityof its people.

The reason it is taking so long is the result that murderous terror of Islamic Radicals who send children into mosques to kill innocent Muslims in a struggle for political power.  The last child could not be counted as a suicide because the bomb she had straped to her was detonated by remote control.

That is the enemy that we (Iraqi people included) are facing and the use of "occupier" was very destructive to the US cause.  I thank God that the word is not being used any more in the responsible media that is.

Akiva,

Whatever your opinions on the war, we've made this crap sandwich, and now we've got to eat it.  If we leave now, the fragile infrastructure of the Iraqi democracy will be ripe for takeover from less hospitable groups than the one that was there before.  If we don't stay the course, and get them on their feet, when they do get on their feet, they are more likely to come swinging after us. 

I don't like that we're there either, but the fact remains, there we are.  Cutting and running seems to be the newest American value, but we will pay for it if we do on this one.  I guarantee it. 

all

Good post.  The dim position now is that they will get out faster the McCain.  The difference is that McCain will get us out victoriously, Obombe and Hill will surrender and we will have a much worse situation.

War is war, and is neither cuddly, nor nice.  Sometimes you have to do things that are considered "illegal" because the choice is your life, or the lives of you cohorts.  Each side does what it takes to win. 

What makes your life and the lives of your cohorts more valuable than the lives of the opposition?  Our illegal occupation of Iraq was totally unnecessary.  The evidence used to persuade Congress to authorize military force was a calculated fabrication.  Therefore, in this case, illegal actions were not necessary. 

Furthermore, the international laws in the Geneva and Vienna Conventions were constructed around the idea that the occupation of a nation is permissible when humanitarian situations necessitate military intervention.  No case was brought before any sovereign legislative body advocating the invasion of Iraq due to humanitarian crises, and the recent right-wing attempt to paint the Iraqi invasion as a humanitarian intervention is but a smear tactic against those who now (or ever) disagree with American policies there. 

America cannot "win" this war-- I am not aware of any historical instance where ideological exportation by force had significantly satisfactory results for the exporter. 

I am not of the group saying calling this a "humanitarian" war.  But it did in fact depose a dictator as one of our first acts.  At this time it seems to be the only one that the Iraqi's peple appreciate.  That will change as the democratic process takes hold as I hope and pray that it will.

Nor do I defend the administration for believing the bad intelligence that was used to enter Iraq, defeat sad man, and get us involved in the mess.  However, we are a responsible nation that must leave Iraq with a functioning government,  as democratic as the people want,  and ready to defend itself.  That is our goal and not "occupation.

I apologize for not responding to the intervening posts, but I read them with interest and appreciate your comments.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"You forgot to mention that we deposed a dictator, for which the people of Iraq are greatful"


In General Sir Michael Rose's book and in his discussion about his book he talks about British Forces going into Northern Ireland to quell the Catholic-Protestant violence there.

He talks about how at first the Catholics were incredibly grateful for the British Troops because it kept the Protestants from killing them--


--but as the months went on and the Troops were still there with their barracades and house-to- house "inspections" and check points etc--the Catholics became VERY BITTER and began trying to force the Troops to leave.

Sound familiar?


General Rose says it is the natural reaction of a people forced to accept the prolonged presence of an occupying force--no matter what wonders the occupiers originally performed.

[Faithfulee]

Spare me your delicacy, because so long as the discussion revolves around human lives, I will spare you mine. 

Where I have I denounced war under any circumstance?  And have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps if we did more to eliminate global poverty, most of the issues in the world would become nonissues?  Do you think people would be out fighting and waving guns in the streets if they had the opportunity for a nine-to-five that gave them the ability to feed their families? 

How is treating one life better than the other a "lesser evil?"  How does the war in Iraq, which in case you have forgotten is the topic at hand, have anything to do with "keeping the millions in our borders safe?" 

The Iraq War is just part of the Jihad against Western Civilization.  It is an important part because it also includes protecting Israel from the onslaught of radical Islamists who have the destruction of Israel very high on their priority list. I assume that is important to you and I hope you include this in your opinions about our goals in Iraq.

I appreciate your opinions by the way, but I don't agree with them.  They are interesting but they don't address the topic that has to do with my condemnation of people who trumpeted "occupier" for so many years and contributed to our enemies efforts to arrouse the masses to kill Americans.


WW -

Our goal is not ocupation and the task is much more difficult that that of the UK in Ireland. you need to spend some more time on learning about the goals and the tactic of Islamic terrorists all around the world.
With our Victory in Iraq we may have set back the Jihad and brought the world closer to democracy and peace.  If we surrender,  we have wasted the lives of all he US military and the Iraqis who are suffereing.

[Akiva]

You forgot to mention that we deposed a dictator, for which the people of Iraq are greatful

Admittedly, I have not polled the people of Iraq recently, but it certainly seems that people there are angry about something.  

And you don't seem to appreciate that it is difficult to set up a democracy.  We aided the Iraqis in doing that and the elections were held and to my knowledge they were fair and acceptable to the people of Iraq.

What I don't appreciate is the fact that it is not our place to do so.  Who said that they were fair and acceptable to the people of Iraq?  The American government?  Or the media in the region that is controlled by the American government?  If international watchdog groups whose purpose is to unbiasedly monitor elections were not allowed in Iraq to do so, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.  

Sure we were present in Iraq.  Do you think it would have been responsible to just depost sad man and leave the country without a government??

Nope.  But, hey, why start being ethical once you've illegally invaded the nation and murdered hundreds of thousands, right?

The point here is that your use of "occupier" is detrimental to the best interests of the US and I condemn it's use.

The point here is that it is an occupation, and no amount of euphemisms will make it anything else.  The point here is that the illegal occupation of a foreign nation is detrimental to the best interests of the US, and I condemn actions that lead us to illegal occupation.  

Our mission is to depose a dictator and leave Iraq with a functioning democratic government that can protect the securityof its people.

Incorrect.  Our mission was to destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction that threatened the illusion of regional stability.  This was a calculated fabrication.  

The reason it is taking so long is the result that murderous terror of Islamic Radicals who send children into mosques to kill innocent Muslims in a struggle for political power.  The last child could not be counted as a suicide because the bomb she had straped to her was detonated by remote control.

Why do you think things like this happen?  Why do you think the poor and destitute willingly kill themselves?  Do you think it's religion?  Do you think they care who's in power, as if it's going to matter to them anyway?  

I am not of the group saying calling this a "humanitarian" war.  But it did in fact depose a dictator as one of our first acts.  At this time it seems to be the only one that the Iraqi's peple appreciate.  That will change as the democratic process takes hold as I hope and pray that it will.  

How can dictated democracy be democratic?

[WorldWarrior]

Michael Rose--

"Washington's War: The American War of Independence to the Iraqi Insurgency"


Here's the link to Charlie Rose's enlightening interview with General Rose (ret) which can be viewed online.
(if you have trouble accessing this link
go to

www.charlierose.com

and follow the directions to the May 15 show)

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/14/2/a-conversation-with-retired-british-army-general-michael-rose




Here's the link to the amazon.com ppage about the book


http://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-War-American-Independence-Insurgency/dp/1933648775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210900790&sr=8-1



Some info about Michael Rose's book


An editorial review fro Kirkus Review

Kirkus Reviews
A sharp, efficient discussion.

Product Description
Michael Rose exposes a grim reality: Iraqi insurgents have adopted the same guerrilla warfare tactics used during the American Revolution.

In June 1775, George Washington commanded a band of rebels who were, in the eyes of the British, nothing more than a collection of "vagrants, deserters and thieves." Yet he led them in a revolution against the British, which ended with an American victory. Washington succeeded in defeating the most powerful army in the world—not by engaging in conventional warfare, at which the British excelled, but by waging an insurgency campaign of ambush and indirect attacks.

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, and in the years that have followed, America has found itself fighting a widespread popular insurrection with an army trained for conventional warfare. Like King George and his advisers, President Bush and his cabinet misunderstood the nature of the problem facing them and underestimated its scale.

 Both imperial Britain and modern American failed to commit enough troops early on, nor could they resolve the dilemmas of counter-insurgency: how to wage military action and isolate the insurgents without alienating the local population. The British Army learned from its mistakes to remain a dominant world power; the Americans, by contrast, seem to be forgetting the lessons of their founding fathers."

[WorldWarrior]

Here's a link to an excerpt from the book in which Michael Rose discusses the similarities and differences between how he British handled leaving the Colonial War and how the US is mired in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6616465.stm