Meanwhile in Iraq....

[Clouse123456]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWQMvDenX44
Looks like things are really stabilizing in Iraq but they want us to leave!

[Seether]

Can't really blame them. Nobody wants foreign soldiers on their soil, especially when they are proud and don't want to be seen unable to protect, govern, or take care of themselves.

[Poet]

Can't really blame them. Nobody wants foreign soldiers on their soil, especially when they are proud and don't want to be seen unable to protect, govern, or take care of themselves.

Yeah, Iraqis do not want Americans on their soil just because American soldiers are foreign soldiers, otherwise American showered tonnes of rose petals on Baghdad, Najaf, Falluja and other cities. Feeling shame is a blessing of God.

[Matthias]

Yeah, Iraqis do not want Americans on their soil just because American soldiers are foreign soldiers, otherwise American showered tonnes of rose petals on Baghdad, Najaf, Falluja and other cities. Feeling shame is a blessing of God.

Let's just say that the US did what the majority of Iraqis were unable to do, that is, overthrow Saddam, but without the Iraqi's permission and with lots of civilian casualties.

I have a feeling it is kinda like in South Korea. Sure, they were liberated from a dictatorship, but to what end? It took the South quite a while to throw off the new dictator that was put in place and come around to democracy. In places in the world where democracy never has existed, simple foreign intervention isn't enough, it requires a movement from the people.

Though it could be argued that the US effectively neutered and fully democratized Germany and Japan after WW2 with their occupations, but that took 50 or so years of occupation and programs.

It is quite arguable that South Korea is better off due to American intervention, especially looking at how the North is doing now. But even then, there will always be bitterness towards foreign intervention.

Being a foreign liberator has few tangible benefits, morally at least.

The US needs to go back to its policy of military isolationism. Being world police sucks all around. Let the people suffer in those oppressed nations, they can only help themselves in the end. Inteverntion won't change the culture of oppression in those places. Just look at Afghanistan. Ruled or unruled, the people still have barbaric practices. Guns wont' change that.

[(s)AINT]

The US needs to go back to its policy of military isolationism. Being world police sucks all around. Let the people suffer in those oppressed nations, they can only help themselves in the end. Inteverntion won't change the culture of oppression in those places. Just look at Afghanistan. Ruled or unruled, the people still have barbaric practices. Guns wont' change that.

Wow. That last paragraph really did it for me.

Isolationism fails and always will fail. Nations need to be active in the world and not pretend like the suffering in the world is another countries problem. Now by active I do not mean imperialistic active. You cannot say the USA is an imperialistic nation based off of the Iraqi/Afghanistan conflicts. The USA has a moral obligation to stop genocide and human rights violations in the world. Those problems just don't "die" away and always come back to bite us in the ass.

[Matthias]

Wow. That last paragraph really did it for me.

Isolationism fails and always will fail. Nations need to be active in the world and not pretend like the suffering in the world is another countries problem. Now by active I do not mean imperialistic active. You cannot say the USA is an imperialistic nation based off of the Iraqi/Afghanistan conflicts. The USA has a moral obligation to stop genocide and human rights violations in the world. Those problems just don't "die" away and always come back to bite us in the ass.

Military isolationism only. There is no reason to have bases all over the world anymore. It's a waste of money from a bygone era (the Cold War). I'm not opposed to stopping genocides, but we have a habit of letting plenty of genocides happen without stopping them if it is in our interest. Hell, we sometimes support the genocidal regime if it is the "lesser of two evils" in the old days.

Instead of that old hat, we should downsize the military and withdraw. Any intervention should be done by the UN, not one nation that carries the burden/curse of "world police".

[Gumpfendorfer]

Let's just say that the US did what the majority of Iraqis were unable to do, that is, overthrow Saddam, but without the Iraqi's permission and with lots of civilian casualties.

They did pretty well in 1991, until Saddam was allowed to unleash his forces by us. Iraq as most other countries would have been in a similar position as Egypt or Tunisia or the rest of the Middle East, total deadlock, bound to fall apart. Saddam would have been in the same position as Mubarak now. Old, severely weakened and his sons being unacceptable to take over. Dictatorships tend to rot from the inside, at some point the state and its organizations simply stop working and fall apart due to mismanagement and corruption. We can see that in Egypt.

As for being liberated, I refer to my old post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...68#post8557868

Not the type of liberation one would want for its country, is it? And at what cost?

[Imperial]

raq as most other countries would have been in a similar position as Egypt or Tunisia or the rest of the Middle East, total deadlock, bound to fall apart.

Er...

I don't think any Iraqi official would put up with protests this long like Mubarak has before bullets start flying. They already exterminated mass amounts of people, what makes you think they won't hesitate to pull the trigger?

[Edgar Arakelyan]

Let's just say that the US did what the majority of Iraqis were unable to do, that is, overthrow Saddam, but without the Iraqi's permission and with lots of civilian casualties.

I have a feeling it is kinda like in South Korea. Sure, they were liberated from a dictatorship, but to what end? It took the South quite a while to throw off the new dictator that was put in place and come around to democracy. In places in the world where democracy never has existed, simple foreign intervention isn't enough, it requires a movement from the people.

Though it could be argued that the US effectively neutered and fully democratized Germany and Japan after WW2 with their occupations, but that took 50 or so years of occupation and programs.

It is quite arguable that South Korea is better off due to American intervention, especially looking at how the North is doing now. But even then, there will always be bitterness towards foreign intervention.

Being a foreign liberator has few tangible benefits, morally at least.

The US needs to go back to its policy of military isolationism. Being world police sucks all around. Let the people suffer in those oppressed nations, they can only help themselves in the end. Inteverntion won't change the culture of oppression in those places. Just look at Afghanistan. Ruled or unruled, the people still have barbaric practices. Guns wont' change that.

I agree they make everyone think they are going on some humanitarian mission when they are only going for their profit.

[TransFax]

I agree they make everyone think they are going on some humanitarian mission when they are only going for their profit.

I've all in all no hard symphaties for the US! But the US will....

[Babur]

Yeah, Iraqis do not want Americans on their soil just because American soldiers are foreign soldiers, otherwise American showered tonnes of rose petals on Baghdad, Najaf, Falluja and other cities. Feeling shame is a blessing of God.

but are you Iraqi?

[Seether]

Yeah, Iraqis do not want Americans on their soil just because American soldiers are foreign soldiers, otherwise American showered tonnes of rose petals on Baghdad, Najaf, Falluja and other cities. Feeling shame is a blessing of God.

Not a big surprise that you once again are trying to steer a thread into an "all Americans are evil" topic. My point remains, and unless you have anything substantial to contradict it, it shall remain so.

[(s)AINT]

Yeah I agree- it is now or never..

[Imperial]

I hope we leave. Iraq has stabilized enough to a point where the Iraqi army can handle threats itself.

[motiv-8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2...rces_Agreement

So nothing new then?

[Imperial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2...rces_Agreement

So nothing new then?

establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011

[motiv-8]

Yes, congratulations, you were able to copy-paste the relevant bits of information. Others shall appreciate it.

So... nothing new then?

[Blaze86420]

American "concern" for the lives of the Iraqi people loses all credibility when they're the ones responsible for the mess in the first place.

[Seether]

American "concern" for the lives of the Iraqi people loses all credibility when they're the ones responsible for the mess in the first place.

So America is the only one responsible...? Yeah, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. I like how you put concern in quotations, just like you are "unbiased" and "reasonable" in any discussion involving America.

[Blaze86420]

So America is the only one responsible...?

It would help your pathetic position in this argument if you would stop pulling out of your ass all the time. It didn't work back then, not going to work here. You should know this by now.

Yeah, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. I like how you put concern in quotations, just like you are "unbiased" and "reasonable" in any discussion involving America.

Oh, I'll be reasonable and unbiased as soon as your country allows me to. I formulate my opinion after examining facts, what the US has done and is still doing in the middle east. I'm not a ing reporter, and I'll express what's on my mind regardless of your oversensitive sense of patriotism.