I don't think we should remain in Iraq

[realFedUp]

Unlike most of the politicians today on talk shows
who said "too bad we got into this mess but now
for the sake of ending terrorism and our reputation
in the world, we need to finish the job in Iraq",
I say get the f**k out now. If corporations benefitting
from this rebuild want to stay in, let them pay for
their own protection with their own funds.

What was our real intent for an invasion in Iraq?
What determines the end point for the US?
Why are we spending billions of deficit monies there while
Americans foot the bill while looting our future and our
infrastructure?

Terrorism is an amorphous word without end, just like evil
and good. There is no end to terrorism or terrorists.
Frankly our reputation was shot years ago when overturning
democratically elected leaders and putting our own in.

Whaddathink?

[Ein]

1. Need the UN or something

The Bushies and thier contractor buds are just don't seem to want to give up thier huge contracts. And I don't doubt they have plans for looting Iraq's oil, that would be more difficult if they let others in.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Kerry was wrong in not endorsing an immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Kerry was wrong in not endorsing an immediate withdrawal from Iraq when given the opportunity to say so on Meet the Press today. Kerry's call to bring foreign troops into Iraq did not quite addressed the issue of the morality of the occupation and the war.

Nothing short of an immediate an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq is acceptable!

[Ein]

3. I am worried that

If we just cut Iraq loose, a regime could rise into power ... fundamentalists Theocracy or such...

[realFedUp]

7. and that's not going to happen anyway?

Look, it's going to be the theocratic flavor of the month
in Iraq...whoever the US deems the easiest to go along with
US corporate interests gets the gold ring.

[Ein]

11. I do not consider it a foregone conclusion

I think there is a chance for Iraq to do better.

[realFedUp]

18. I think the Iraqis can do better than Saddam

but let them decide with who and how.

[Ein]

28. We need to give them an infrastructure to do that.

If we pull out I doubt they are gonna set up an elections system. I think that the largest group with the most guns is going to subjugate the majority, in that case.

[JVS]

63. They wouldn't accept an infrastructure from us.

It would be tainted. Anything we set up over there is going to be knocked down the second we leave.

[tlcandie]

4. You will want to read this article ... :/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0831-06.htm

<snip>
139 US troops killed in the Iraq war.

143 American military personnel killed since the 'end' of major combat operations on 1 May.

65 of those killed since the May declaration were killed in action; the rest were killed as a result of 'non-hostile situations' - vehicle crashes and other accidents.

563 American troops wounded in action.

19 British soldiers killed in combat

31 British soldiers killed in non-hostile situations

11 British soldiers killed since the May declaration.

9,000+ Estimated number of Iraqi casualties.

2,300+ Estimated number of Iraqi troops killed in fighting in and around Baghdad alone.

7,000+ Estimated number of Iraqi civilians believed to have been killed during the conflict.
<snip>

[realFedUp]

9. I thought Iraqi casualties were around 37,000

can we get some intelligence in this country?

[Terwilliger]

5. I'm shocked, Indy

you want the country to descend into further chaos??

[IndianaGreen]

8. We are the reason the country is in chaos

We are like a rapist that says that he should be allowed to remain with his victim until "she gets over it"!

I wrote about this back in July:

IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-23-03 07:03 PM
Original message

Withdraw the troops now by placing Iraq under UN Mandate

What we need is to get the Security Council to vote on a resolution putting Iraq under a UN Mandate, as it was done when the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established in 1995. The UN Mandate will put Iraq under UN governance and security, until such time as Iraq is ready to elect a government.

The US would withdraw its troops immediately upon the UN administration being installed in Baghdad, and international peacekeepers from neutral countries assume security duties.

End of the war. No more casualties!

Troops will be home NLT Thanksgiving!

UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina

On December 21, 1995, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1035, setting up the UN International Police Task Force and a UN Civil Affairs Office. These were brought together as the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UN Mission (UNMIBH) was created to help implement the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (also referred to as the as the Dayton-Paris Agreement). It was "under the authority of the Secretary-General and subject to coordination and guidance as appropriate" of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina appointed to oversee the Agreement’s implementation.

On December 31, 2002, the UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina completed its mandate. The European Union Police Mission (EUPM) assumed international police monitoring duties in Bosnia and Herzegovina on January 1, 2003.

The International Police Task Force has reformed and restructured local police personnel and organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reducing the bloated local police forces from over 40,000 personnel in 1996 to approximately 20,000 today. Through this process, the UN has also de-certified officers who were without proper training or education and those who participated in war crimes or other violations of the law. In addition, the UN worked to improve recruitment of officers from minority groups within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska and mentored local police in leadership positions.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/16291.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=69982&mesg_id=69982&page=2

[Terwilliger]

59. I've said this before...that's apart from the reality

it will be many months before the current American administration could be capable of facilitating a UN takeover, much less the fact that Bush will be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything, and we should not have been there in the first place.

If we leave while no authority is in place, we will make it worse.

This is not like a rape. It's a war. Pull the "dick" out and we let the VD take over.

[IndianaGreen]

68. I don't count myself among those that mythologize the male sex organ

Iraq had an advanced civilization thousands of years before there was an American republic. While many of our European ancestors were busy burning at the stake people that dared question the dominant theology of Earth being at the center of the universe, or using leeches to cure migraines, Iraqi astronomers could predict solar eclipses and Iraqis had a thriving and comparatively enlightened civilization.

The point I am making is that there is nothing special about America or Americans. We are not endowed by the Creator with a special measure of wisdom, nor have we been annointed as the Earth's Saviours.

You will find that the Shias in Iraq are well organized and can quickly establish governing bodies and a militia to maintain law and order. If you don't want the Shias to run the place, then you shouldn't have toppled the Baathists from power or dismissed their 400,000-strong army.

[Tinoire]

51. I'm with Indy on this one Terwilliger - US OUT NOW

They've messed this up SO HORRIFICALLY that there is NO way we can stay there! Not even to fulfill our moral DUTY to rebuild the place.

Not only do we not have ANY intention of rebuilding the place, but even if we did, we have done SO much damage that the ONLY thing we can do now is lower our heads, close our eyes, IN SHAME and leave saying "We're sorry, we're sorry". We know it's not enough but we'll pay for your therapy, we'll pay for your cosmetic reconstruction and we'll stay away from you and never do this to anyone again". But we can't and we won't because we are a serial rapist.

This is now our Karma. That of the rapist. I would like to think we can AT LEAST be a repenting rapist to mitigate the very bad karma coming our way. We have been caught and shamed in front of the world. There is NOTHING for the rapist to do except LEAVE right now, to have the decency to leave the f*&^%g room.

The Empire is DEAD. DEAD. And Little Boots is fucking fiddling, yesterday stumbling down the steps of the helicopter DRUNK. Did you see him? I could NOT believe my eyes!



He was totally inebriated yesterday. World balance hangs on this FOOL? This fool paving the way for the absolute evil to come? What Bush has done is only part 1 of the PNAC plan. There is more to come. It's not just Bush that has to be stopped, it's the entire rotten group that's pushing and following that blue-print. But you know that already, I know.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=252927&mesg_id=252927#253172

US OUT!

US OUT!

US OUT NOW!

[Terwilliger]

67. Tinoire

do you want another dictator to take over?

If Democrats, say, have any vested interests in the absolute truth, they'll send 500,000 troops to pacify the country, strictly give control to UN authority, and the institutions Iraq needs to proceed in a democratic fashion can be built. And we should pay every last cent of reconstruction, AND we should nationalize their oil, and give total control to the legitimate Iraqi authority.

If we just up and leave, Iraq will become Iran...fundamentalist city. And, you know, atheists understand what believers do in the name of their god...we don't want fundamentalists either. We have good reason not to.

Now, do I believe any of this will happen? No. That's why I drink. I thought the Democratic party would take care of these things when I supported them without any real knowledge of what was going on. Now that I see that they don't actually believe in what they say, I'm hard pressed to want to support them.

[G_j]

75. Fatal Flaw

Rumsfeld and everyone else running this are not capable of accomplishing anything good for anyone! They are @*^$ing nazis!

[Terwilliger]

92. I agree

it's not like I have the power to make something good happen...but, even though it's horrid, we can't just abandon them

[peace4all]

105. imagine

asking Hitler to fix the 'mess' he made in Poland.

[Tinoire]

77. No

I'm not saying to pull out leaving a vacuum... I'm advocating we hand the reins over to the UN and pull out.

Our presence there will only serve more harm than good. People neither forget nor forgive overnight.

You asked: If Democrats, say have any vested interests in the absolute truth and you need go no further my friend. They do not nor shall they ever. Both parties work off the same blueprint of global domination. The only thing that ever changes is which hand does the wringing but the results are the same- when it comes to exploiting the rest of the world- bi-partisanship kicks in full throttle.

Democrats are just as rotten as the Republicans when it comes to Pax Americana. I'm very sorry, but I do not trust my own Party. The only person I think who could pull this off is Kucinich but that's too far down the road.

If we just up and leave, Iraq will become Iran- fundamentalist city I'm really sorry. First of all, I don't buy all that crap we've been brain-washed to believe. I had property owning Persian female friends in Germany with their Persian husbands IN TOW. Half the crap we read about those people is just self-serving crap. Sure there are horrible things that happen but no more horrible than the things taking place in our own country. It's their culture, there country- who died and made us God?

Who, oh who will save me from the horrors of capitalism?

But once again, I don't advocate leaving a vacuum. We are in no way trustworthy or honorable enough to remain there. It is time to hand the whole kit and kaboodle over to the UN.

You are a man. I am a woman. We think so differently and I don't think you can understand, empathize well enough with the victim's point of view.

Ever notice how when a man dumps a female, he always wants to remain friends and all that crap? Here I talking about men who have done hurtful things to women, like cheating on them, disprespecting them, saying they never loved them, leaving them out of the blue because they can't handle feelings or just want their freedom to look for "something better" (etc, etc, you know all the etcs) and then have the absolute audacity to throw in the line "but I really want to be friends". NO! No! We can not be friends- you have HURT me. You have done things to me NO FRIEND would ever have done! Do not hang around! You who inflicted this pain on me through your selfishness and refusal to talk are the LAST person who can help me through!

Such is the situation in Iraq. The victim would like us to leave. We have no honorable choice other than respecting the victim's wishes.

:)

You don't even believe what you wrote

Now, do I believe any of this will happen? No. That's why I drink. I thought the Democratic party would take care of these things when I supported them without any real knowledge of what was going on. Now that I see that they don't actually believe in what they say, I'm hard pressed to want to support them.

Our main difference is that because I, along with you, believe that this will not happen- I want us out now. ABA Anyone but the Americans!

[Terwilliger]

96. difference?

hell, we agree on just about everything :hi:

Let's hope Bush will be persuaded to turn it over to the UN as quickly as possible. That should not forfeit our responsibilities.

[Tinoire]

108. We usually do :) See you at the next protest

I'm already working on a new flyer and getting Mr. "Paws for Peace" all psyched :)

Peace

[Darranar]

98. What I would do for Iraq...

I wouldn't withdraw ALL American troops. I would keep some as part of a UN peacekeeping force in control of all of Iraq. I would of course pour money into this peacekeeping operation and try to do whatever I could to clean up the mess that this country started.

[Tinoire]

109. Why do you think we even need some?

And would these some be under Foreign control?

I'd like to get them out of there ASAP. They're tired and their lives are being ruined. None of our soldiers are trained for peace-keeping but that's not my main reason. Apart from the fact that the Iraqi people will not, can't accept them after what has gone on, we simply don't have that many right now and they need to come home and recoup.

We've drawn so many Reservists to fill in the holes and those Reservises need to come home too to rebuild their shattered lives. Many have already lost their jobs while they were deployed and it's not going to be easy for them in this economy.

It will be interesting to see what the UN proposes and what the US accepts. Whatever happens, I don't want the US or the UK in charge.

[Darranar]

112. They'd be part of a UN peacekeeping force...

under complete UN control. The US should cede all control to the ZUN.

The reservisst should go home. Now that the invasion is over, they aren't needed anymore. We need a multilateral peacekeeping force in Iraq controlled by the UN. The US should have some soldiers with the rest.

[ulysses]

79. heh

Now, do I believe any of this will happen? No. That's why I drink.

Good answer!

Agreed that we can't just leave, and there's obviously no way Bush will ever turn this thing entirely over to the UN. No good will come of the current situation.

[Aidoneus]

87. what a possibly racist view

without the whites around to show them the way Iraqis ruling their own affairs would be "chaos"? I'm surprised, though it may not be intended that way as it is passed off, I have found that the argument originates from such a view.

What non-chaos have the invaders & occupation forces brought so far?! What good have they brought, and what reason is there to believe that it will be any better as long as one inch of the land is occupied?

By the same argument, Israel should keep their grip over Palestine Jail just because they've spent so much effort in wrecking it as the US has in Iraq. The argument is junk either way, the improvement begins when the invader leaves and not before.

[ulysses]

88. racist?

Democracy is not an easy state of affairs to reach, and we're talking about a nation crawling with sectarian distrust and with no recent experience in anything resembling democratic governance. We've just removed from power the dictator who, for all his manifest faults, more or less kept sectarian violence in check. No, American forces have obviously not brought order - nor are they likely to be able to do so in any real way - but a power vacuum in the absence of a stable system of government will bring a bloody civil war.

[Aidoneus]

90. are they capable of managing their own affairs?

or do they need us, or some UN mandate filled with European countries, around to show them the way? that is a potentially racist view, yes (maybe not intentionally so or meant with such malice, but the assumption comes off as such), rather akin to the classist view that the masses of people in general are not able to handle themselves, they need some elite class to rule over them because the people just can't do it themselves without "help".

Saddam didn't keep sectarian violence in check, the Baathist rule was essentially the rule of a self-interested minority elite over great masses of people who didn't think that was such a great thing, sectarian violence and resistance to the state was the order of the day and not some recent advent.

Retreating from myself a bit, there is one sense in which the occupation forces can benefit stablization between potentially warring Iraqi groups, that is--being some lightning rod that will unite all the various groups against the unwanted invader like it was the last time some Western invader thought they should occupy Iraq--the British ended up carpet bombing and using poison gas shells against civilians just to keep their grip over it after their facade of a puppet regime fooled nobody, what lengths will we go to now?

There's virtually no power, no services, no police, no safety--all of this has been taken away by the invaders. Why should the latter be given any benefit of the doubt here? The interests of the US/UK there is not to provide any of this to the people--hell, their bosses would love it if they could get away with not providing shit to us too back here in the "homeland", they try their damndest to give us non-rich types bare bones type of services and leave parts of this country like a "Third World" land--, but fattening the bank accounts of their patrons and nothing else. The British put forth "King" Feisal & Nuri Said as their puppet facade as they were plundering the economic wealth behind the curtains but the Iraqis didn't buy it, such will likely be the case here as Bremer & Chalabi "denationalize" the economic assets (oil) and turn them over to Western corporations--the longer we stay there the more certain the latter happens, and Iraqis won't benefit from that.

[IndianaGreen]

91. Americans can't even manage our own affairs

and we claim we can manage someone else's affairs?

America is not even a democracy, if it were, the candidate with the most popular votes would win. I don't see President Gore in the White House!

[Aidoneus]

94. actually, the whole question is moot

if 200,000,000 Americans at once decided that the army shouldn't be there anymore, Bush's handlers and their economic class backers would just shrug it off mumbling "who asked you?".. thus it's not worth me being rude to a couple posters I usually agree with.

[ulysses]

99. tricky argument there.

You've already thrown the race card at someone who no more shares the demonstrably racist goals behind the Bush administration than you or I do, so I have to respond that of course, the Iraqis are capable of managing their own affairs. There's nothing inherent in the Iraqi people that makes them any less capable of self-government than anyone else on the planet.

But if you're saying that democracy will somehow assert itself in Iraq if only we'll leave, whether or not the UN is there in force, I have to disagree. IG is right to point out that we've been at this for more than 200 years and still haven't gotten it, so thinking that the Iraqis will magically produce a functioning government of, by and for the people in a nation with which we've dicked, constantly and for our own gain, for decades is the stuff of myth. On the other hand, if you're saying that we should withdraw and simply let the chips fall as they may, I find that reprehensible and a replay of what happened when we abandoned Afghanistan in the 80s once the Soviets had been beaten back.

[Aidoneus]

104. you were right to respond to that impulsive claim of mine

I'm fairly sure Terwilliger didn't mean that as a racist view, for I know enough of him to be again fairly certain that he doesn't look at things from such a perspective, but the view in general in my view originally stems from it anyway and I object to it.

As for,
...But if you're saying that democracy will somehow assert itself in Iraq if only we'll leave, whether or not the UN is there in force, I have to disagree....
I don't remember touching on specific subjects like that; I haven't really here been saying what I think should be, just what I think will be as things stand. I'm not so sure that the army should leave now & immediately (and here I waffle about inconsistantly)--as if what I, you, or anyone else here think matters to the pompous assholes who undeservedly get to actually decide on such matters--, nor do I think they have a benefit in staying, but all the same I would say that the conditions will not improve in that respect so long as they're there. It's something of an impossible situation really.

What is more, where there are Iraqis trying to manage their affairs outside of the "Coalition's" failures, like the WCPI's Union of Unemployed, they get busted on for it anyway--a direct obstruction of self-rule on top of it all.

2003-Iraq & 1980s/90s-Afghanistan are quite different things, different situations, historical backgrounds, and events in play, etc.. I think rather the opposite is true, the sectarian militancy that ripped up Afghanistan is actually encouraged more the longer Iraq is occupied.

I don't know if I want to continue with that fairly rude line of argument I impulsively started above, I may have been reacting to the view in general and not Terwilliger directly. (that's not just an awkward half-apology, rather that it was a half-formed thought that I've been bouncing around that found an outlet here finally)

[ulysses]

106. true, but

as if what I, you, or anyone else here think matters to the pompous assholes who undeservedly get to actually decide on such matters

I do think it matters that we at least give ourselves voice.

I don't mean to jump all over you - I agree that the situation is impossible, and there is a great deal of racism realized in it as a whole. I just can't divorce the issue from its specifics.

I think rather the opposite is true, the sectarian militancy that ripped up Afghanistan is actually encouraged more the longer Iraq is occupied.

Maybe so. I hope not, because I suspect that we're going to be there for a while, but then I'm largely reduced to the hope that Iraq isn't now well and truly fucked no matter what we do.

Peace -

[Terwilliger]

97. Do you think the Iraqis are nationalistic?

that's the question...and, no, they're not...they're disparate groups of people with different philosophies, plus there are lots of despots, thugs, and bad people who will fuck up a free lunch. We've decimated them for all these years...I don't think they have nationalistic pride.

The only thing they might all have in common is hatred of the United States, which is truly sad.

Again, nothing should be done until the UN can truly take over! No matter what's happened before, someone must try to control the chaos, and not leave a vacuum.

Possibly racist?? :shrug:

[realFedUp]

6. I'm with you.

We're usually ahead of the curve but this is going
to be a big issue with Americans and before too long.

[StandWatie]

10. We should get the hell out of the other hemisphere entirely

That would effectively win the "War on some Terrorists" tommorow but of course that will never ever happen :shrug:

[MaverickX]

12. absolutely not...

As of now Iraq is in a state of anarchy which is a prime place for terrorists to operate. Also if we just leave Iraq without first putting in some sort of authority, hopefully muslim and Arab we'll be putting the Middle East into a state of fear as in the fear that the chaos in Iraq will spillover into neighboring Arab states.

Fear is one of the biggest causes of war and we can't afford to have Arab states in the region become reactionary out of fear. Instead of just withdrawing from Iraq out of our own fear we need to swallow our pride and politely ask(rather than challenging them to act as Bush did) Arab states in the Middle East to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq.

[lcordero]

29. The whole Arab world is already becoming reactionary out

of fear. The Islamists wiped out the liberals in the Kuwaiti elections for a reason. Politely asking Arab States will not help. They don't have any obligation to clean up shrub's mess.

[Tinoire]

52. We need to immediately pull out

and let the UN handle this one with NO interference from us.

Our presence will do nothing except exacerbate this EXPLOSIVE situation.

I agree with you that a vacuum would be horrible and irresponsable but we can't be the ones filling the vacuum.

The last person the victim wants to see is the rapist.

[MaverickX]

61. I don't view Iraq as a victim..

I view the international community as the victim. We can't realistically leave until the international community fills the vaccuum first. Didn't the UN say the wouldn't step in? The UN isn't infallible.

[IndianaGreen]

74. Does that mean that you don't view Mike Tyson as a rapist?

but more as a victim of circumstance?

The mental gymnastics that some people go through in order to rationalize this illegal and immoral war and occupation is astonishing! It is such mentality that resulted in the Vietnam war lasting for as long as it did. Back then, the mantra was "peace with honor". Some honor! It is easy to speak of "peace with honor" when it is not one's ass that is getting shot.

Over half of all the names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial came after it was decided to withdraw from Vietnam. It was a long withdrawal...

[Tinoire]

80. The UN is MOST willing to step in provided

the Americans agree that they are no longer running the show; this is what we refuse to do. The UN, the rest of the world, want the US to just pack up and go.
--------------------------

The United States has signalled for the first time that it might accept a UN-mandated multinational force in Iraq provided it is led by an American.

US deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a group of American journalists that one idea being considered was a multinational force under UN leadership, but that "the American would be the UN commander".

Washington insists it will not yield command and control of the US-led force in Iraq.

<snip>

Countries which opposed the US-led war in Iraq - notably France, Germany and Russia - have demanded a greater UN role, refusing to contribute troops to the current occupying force.

Mr Annan warned that the United States would find it "very difficult" to get a new UN Security Council resolution adopted on expanding military forces on the ground if it failed to boost the UN's role.

<snip>

Many countries have expressed a willingness to assist in Iraq, but they do not want the stigma of serving under an occupying force which has yet to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3187133.stm

--------------------------------

As I said yesterday, we will continue the work he and the colleagues in Iraq began. The Security Council, in approving Resolution 1483, ordered us to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq, to ensure that the Iraqis are in charge of their own political destiny and in control of their natural resources, and that the day that the Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly.

Sergio was involved in that effort, not only in that effort but helping with the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq. The average Iraqi needs our help for them to be able to stabilize their country and build an Iraq that is peaceful, democratic and prosperous, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours. And we will continue that work.

<snip>

Q: What measures must be taken to avoid danger in Iraq right now?

SG: We've taken strenuous measures to strengthen the security of our personel. We will take further measures. I also intend to meet with all the humanitarian agencies to coordinate our efforts further. Already, the coalition forces are offering greater security and we will take further steps to strengthen our security and protect ourselves.

The option of withdrawing is not something we can consider. The people of Iraq need us; they want us to stay. And the fanatics and the violent people who took Sergio and Nadia, Rick Hooper and other colleagues from us are not going to dictate what happens in Iraq.

Q: What about the possibility of multilateral forces?

SG: Well, that is an issue that is under discussion: whether the current coalition forces will be transformed into a UN-mandated multinational force, which would also allow other countries to participate and internationalize the effort and also for the UN to play a greater role.

These are issues being discussed in capitals and at the United Nations. I'm intimately involved in these discussions but it will take some time for us to come to conclusions.

Rio de Janeiro, 24 August 2003 - Secretary-General's press encounter before leaving Rio de Janeiro
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=473

Q: Are you going to review the size of the UN Mission in Iraq and the way it is deployed?

SG: We have a mandate from the Security Council to establish UNAMI. We will go ahead and establish that mission. Obviously, we are going to reassess certain things. It will be necessary, I am sure, to strengthen and reassess our security arrangements and that process has already begun.

<sniup>

Q: What have you talked with world leaders about the situation in Iraq, and how will it influence your opinion for the prolonging of the Mission?

SG: They have all condemned what has happened, and they all realize the importance of the role of the United Nations in Iraq, and the fact that we will have to continue, and the Iraqi people want us to continue. I think those who undertook this violent act are not acting on behalf of the Iraqi people nor are they speaking for them. We will continue our work and we have lots of support around the world and from around the region.

Q: There was a report earlier today that said the UN had turned down an offer from the United States for increased security around the mission. Do you know anything about that?

SG: Well, I read it and I must say I was a bit surprised. First of all, I was surprised that we would turn down such an offer, and secondly, that kind of decision should not be left to the protected. It is those who have responsibility for security and law and order, who have intelligence, who determine what action is taken. I don't know if the UN did turn down an offer of protection, but if it did it was not correct, and they should not have been allowed to turn it down. We all live in this city. Nobody tells you if you want the police to patrol your neighbourhood. They make the assessment that patrol and protection is needed, and it's done. And that's what should be done in Iraq.

<snip>

Q: Are you considering sending in a peacekeeping force?

SG: Do you mean a UN peacekeeping force, or the Council authorizing a multinational force? I think if you are thinking of a multinational force, that is an issue that is under discussion, but I do not see UN Blue Helmets going into Iraq at this stage. I don't think it is a job for Blue Helmets.

Q: Sir, you spoke of mistakes and wrong assumptions. Are these of the United Nations or of the coalition forces, who did you mean?

SG: Well, I think when you take on such a complex operation, one has to do planning ahead and I think there have been some wrong assumptions all along. The coalition has made some mistakes, and maybe we have made some mistakes, too.

Q: What kind of mistakes did the coalition make, and what are your mistakes?

SG: I don't want to go into the details. I don't want to get into finger-pointing. But I think we are all aware that along the way mistakes have been made by all concerned. Thank you very much.

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=467

[Iluvleiberman]

13. Who would replace us and the Brits in Iraq?

The UN? uh...no. They got truck bombed and that was WITHOUT third world soldiers wearing blue caps.

Saudia Arabia? Nope they don't have the military to do it.

Iran? Well I suppose Iran can now invade and win.

Bush got us into this mess and now he has to see it through.

[sujan]

64. yea you're right

it's better that the americans and the brits get shot. at least it's worth watching aaron brown go 'gloomy face' on CNN.

[Tinoire]

84. And just who truck bombed them?

Could it by any chance have been the very people who don't want the UN involved? You know... the PNAC crowd...

Or are they so pure that you don't think they would do such a thing when BILLIONS and geo-economic redefining are at stake here?

[poskonig]

14. I vehemently protest.

The **best** option is to 1) Put the UN in command somehow 2) Bring in foreign $$$ to accelerate the reconstruction and 3) Bring in foreign troops, particularly arab troops.

Leaving unconditionally creates several problems.

Iraq would split up into three separate nations. A Kurdish state creates problems in Turkey. A fundamentalist Shi'ite state is not desirable either, especially if it is allied with Iran, or even worse, becomes part of Iran, making it a superpower in the region.

Leaving also gives terrorists free reign in the country. It also allows Hussein to possibly come back which is *NOT* an option.

The worst element of leaving is that it would create an image of American weakness, which means it is open season on the United States.

[IndianaGreen]

15. "American weakness"? This is not a "who-has-a-bigger-penis" game!

We should let Iraq take care of Iraq, and that means that the US should get the heck out of there ASAP.

In the end, the US will be forced to leave Iraq with our tail between the legs. The question is, should we leave now and save lives, or should we leave later and lose more lives?

[poskonig]

19. You do realize who will fill the power vacuum.

Saddam Hussein, an anti-American fundamentalist regime, Iran, et cetera.

We have better options. We should go to the UN and get the international community involved.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Yeah, we had better options, and war was not one of them!

Can't say that you weren't warned about the consequences of invading Iraq. It is time to eat crow!

Never throw good money after bad! Cut your losses now, and get out of Iraq and forget all those dreams about an American empire.

[realFedUp]

25. Yeah, sell Cisco.

:-)

[poskonig]

30. I opposed the invasion of Iraq precisely for these reasons.

However, just because Bush is irresponsible doesn't mean that we must be irresponsible too.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Irresponsible is to pursue Bush's policies in Iraq

Remember when Bush 1 sent troops to Somalia and handed over the problem to President Clinton, with disastrous consequences a few months later?

Bush's mistakes are his mistakes. We should not make them our mistakes by trying to save his chestnuts from the fire.

[realFedUp]

34. I don't think it's "ours" to be responsible for.

and a lot of Americans are going to feel that way.

The people who will benefit from a "rebuilt" Iraq
should be the ones footing the bills, doing the work
and giving their lives. I'd say those are Iraqis.

Now if the issue is really about oil and Pax Americana,
then maybe all the little neo-cons and corporations
can find a way to fund this instead of throwing their
corporate dollars into Bush's basket.

[poskonig]

35. I don't understand your reasons for leaving Iraq in rubble.

We can get the international troops and money to make Iraq prosperous and secure. As 911 shows, ignoring these things will bite us in the ass later.

[realFedUp]

41. Put UN troops in

but the Iraqis are going to have to put this together again,
just like Vietnam.

[Iluvleiberman]

50. Why not put US troops under UN Command

from Germany! HAH!

[Tinoire]

83. Why not? Do you have something against the Germans? n/t

[Iluvleiberman]

101. Bush does n/t

[Tinoire]

110. Ah- I misunderstood you. It would be poetic revenge for sure!

The French and the Germans. Bush would go off the DEEP end on that one :evilgrin:

[Tinoire]

54. We?

When have we EVER had ANY genuine interest in making anyone else prosperous and secure? We have NEVER done anything without putting our own interests first.

Well this time the pain is too deep, the crime was TOO violent.

Meddling in that region is what got us 911. Remaining there will only bring us more 911s because we are creating these threats- actively creating this danger, these threats to ourselves and then, just like Israel, we will rush, looking for the savior waiting in the wings and put a warrior in charge of our security which will only lead to more madness as we toss around platitudes like "expansion of peace and more freedom", "in the service of a balance of power that favors freedom."

Of course all of that is covered in the PNAC plan.

Death to the Pax Americana that has fuelled so much hate and resentment across the world.

[Tinoire]

53. We have NO moral say in this anymore!

War mongerers and their enablers have SHAMED America in front of an entire HORRIFIED world and exposed us as the serial rapist we are. This is no time to finally call in the therapist and "talk about it" and play "can this relationship be saved".

We have NO moral right to remain ANYWHERE near that region.

We need to to more than "get the international community involved"; we need to hand the entire thing over to the UN and gtf out of there with a profuse apology and commitment to pick up the bill.

There is no other decent choice.

Are we a decent people or are we not?!

[poskonig]

55. This is not a matter of right.

This is a matter of consequence. And the consequences of failure are far more severe than the benefits of staying in. With international dollars and troops, we can do this.

[Tinoire]

60. And just what would be the consequences of the US pulling out

and totally handing the reins over to the UN?

That we would end up with egg on our face

Be seen as weak?

The consequences will be MUCH worse if the US remains. Everyone has already seen through our charade and the hate will only grow.

Why must the US stay? I see NO justification for US involvement other than to pick up the bill and keep apologizing.

[poskonig]

73. Some of our forces are going to have to stay.

We do need the international troops and dinero. We agree on this more than we disagree.

[Tinoire]

81. I have a very bad feeling about our forces remaining

First off, our forces have been traumatized by this also.

I received a letter and phone call 3 weeks ago from one of my soldiers who just returned from Iraq. He's 26 years old and a total wreck. He can't even bond with his own kids anymore and just wants to die. Do you know why? Because he was ordered to blow up a house with kids inside. They knew there were people, a family, inside because a woman came to the window with her hands up and a baby in her arms. Well they were ordered to blow up the house anyway. One little girl just flew through the air like a little red, blood-dripping doll and that's the vision he sees everytime he closes his eyes- that little girl flying through the air. His life is just as ruined as those of the kids he killed.

So no... they have to leave Postkonig- for their sanity and for the Iraqis.

Why do you insist on our forces remaining? What can they possibly contribute that others can't? The only reason we would keep forces there is to protect our interests- my moral point is that we are not entitled to saying boo about our interests after the mess those interests caused.

[Darranar]

107. We disagree on very few issues, Tinoire...

but this is one of them. Without US help, it will be seen by the rest of the world as them being ordered to clean up the United State's mess.

I don't support keeping all the troops in Iraq in Iraq. I support withdrawing the majority of them.

The physchological effect of war is horrendous for both the soldiers and the civilians caught in the crossfire. There we agree.

[Tinoire]

111. Hmmm - It would have to be finessed somehow

I totally agree that it shouldn't look as if the rest of the world has been "ordered to clean up the United State's mess." It should look as if we were kicked out which I know France, Germany, and many other countries would be more than happy to support.

In my dreams, I'd like to see the war criminals involved hauled off to the world court, right next to Milo-boy, and right along with "Le voyou" ;) to be judged.

I don't think it's easy, even possible, for a soldier to go from an aggressive attack mode to a peace-keeping humanitarian mode with the same people. Both sides will still see each other in their former roles. For over a decade, the US military has been encourating its soldiers to hate the "Eyerakis" aka "Sand Niggers". When I left, most had been thoroughly indoctrinated to view them as the enemy. I don't think that can be undone overnight.

A few soldiers I could live with but that it all depends on how many, which ones, and under whose command. One thing is certain- the US/UK must not have any semblance of authority there.

[Darranar]

113. It really depends...

on what the UN does. I'm worried because the UN has made clear its reluctance to do anything real until there is security in Iraq.

A resolution to bring peacekeeping forces into Iraq, plus an admission by the US President (whoever that will be) that we were wrong to go in there, might be enough. I think, however, that US troops would have to be part of that peacekeeping force, as they have in every other UN peacekeeping mission.

[Walt Starr]

24. I'm with you, IG

The longer we stay, the more the arguments will become "leave Iraq with dignity and honor".

This quagmire will go on for decades. Fuck it, get out now and let Saddam have the mess back.

[Tinoire]

56. Oh no Walt

(sarcasm) because then Sadaam wins. Then not only is that inarticulate drunken frat boy embarrassed but Daddy is embarrassed. Blair is embarrassed. Sharon is embarrassed.

And every stinking person who ever supported this war is embarrassed.

We will not have that. Our pride is too insurmountable.

Besides, if we pull out- who shall we exploit? Other countries might catch on to just how fragile our ability to dominate them really is.


Why it would be the death of the glorious empire...

[realFedUp]

16. No one is giving the Iraqis much credit

for making their own decisions. Why does the US always
come off like a overbearing parent?

[poskonig]

20. Will the Iraqis rebuild themselves through osmosis?

Building a democracy in Iraq will take troops and dollars. Just because we cannot do this alone doesn't mean we should pullout.

[realFedUp]

23. There won't be a democracy

hell, we hardly one in this country right now. There will
be a mutt form of a theocracy...kinda like Iran was.
Hey, why don't we force Saudi Arabia to be a democracy?

[poskonig]

26. Bush didn't invade Saudi Arabia.

I agree that Bush should not have fucked up Iraq. But just because Bush made a mess in Iraq doesn't mean we should make a worse one.

[realFedUp]

36. and why didn't Bush invade Saudi Arabia?

They seem to be funding terrorists and terrorism against
this country. They don't have a democracy and they have
a lot of oil.
There's a stronger reason to invade them than Iraq.

[poskonig]

39. You still haven't given any reason to leave Iraq in squalor and chaos.

I agree that we had more reason to invade Saudi Arabia, we cannot rebuild the country alone, blah blah blah.

However, you're not giving *logical* reasons why we should pull out. It is all mindless emotivism. Since building Iraq into a prosperous and secure nation is clearly doable provided we seek the right support, you have a lot of explaining to do.

The realism of the matter: Iraq is messed up, and an American president did it (with the support of Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt I might add).

[realFedUp]

45. The reasons to get out

Save American soldier's lives.
Save billions of American taxpayer dollars.
It's their country, not ours.
It's their resources, not ours and they should hire the companies to rebuild their infrastructure.
Our military reserves have been stretched to the limits doing
civilian protective work that Iraqis should be doing.

In other words, who put us in charge of the world?
There is going to be chaos, here, there, everywhere. We
aren't in charge of it. We don't have to pay for this,
in money and lives.

Put in UN forces if you fear chaos.

[poskonig]

72. I agree with bringing in international forces.

However, categorically leaving for selfish reasons will bite us in the ass later.

[Tinoire]

57. A kinder, gentler occupation

Is that what you're advocating? I think the Iraqis have made it rather clear that, like the Palestinians, they will resist by all means necessary.

How many more US troops will have to die for this? How many more Iraqis. They do not want us there- we need to get out.

We've lost whatever moral authority we may have had and no one is buying the charade anymore.

I'm not advocating we pull out and leave a vacuum- but WE must leave and let the UN fill in the vacuum.

[Walt Starr]

66. There will NEVER be a Democracy in Iraq

There are a very few choices, none of them good:

1) Despotic U.S. puppet governement requiring U.S. troops to be filled for the next several decades and no peace ever in the country.

2) Fundamentalist Islamist Theocracy. If there is voting ever allowed that is fair, this is what will b e voted in place, afterwards voting ends.

3) Secular Despot similar to Saddam Hussein or Hussein himself, only after the U.S. pulls out.

That's it. I see absolutely no possibility of a Democracy in Iraq ever.

[StandWatie]

17. I could really give a damn if Hussein came back

it would suck for Iraqi's but it isn't going to affect my life in any way whatsover.

[realFedUp]

21. and frankly, women were free to work and get schooling

there is no way that women under a more fundamentalist
sect is going to have the same freedoms, even with
troops on each corner.

[StandWatie]

27. apparently he could get the power going to

took him two weeks after DS1 to get it going and the oil flowing :shrug:

[realFedUp]

37. but Friedman said there were stores with electronics in them...

his way of thinking is bizarre to me

[StandWatie]

43. it all started to make sense to me..

Well, not sense exactly but where he gets his ideas.

He said in an interview that it wasn't necessary at all to target Saddam and that Iran or Saudi Arabia could have been targeted to achieve the aims of the US just as easily but Iraq was the easiest and it was meant as a message to the Arab regimes (Iran isn't Arab but that is probably lost to Friedman who has a rather nasty, racist attitude toward everyone else in the middle east other than Israel) not to support "terror" or else. He believes that 95% of all terrorism is allowed because states allow it (I would wildly disagree with him about the necessity of state power and "terrorism") so from a Roman Emperor sort of collective punishment on unruly provinces it makes all the sense in the world to him.

[realFedUp]

102. 400 Iraqi women kidnapped, raped, sold since invasion

_'Over 400 Iraqi Women Kidnapped, Raped in Postwar Chaos'

"More than 400 Iraqi women have been kidnapped and raped amid the lawlessness gripping the country since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq said Sunday. The group's director Yanar Mohammed said the four months since the US-led coalition took control had seen an 'unprecedented' explosion of violence against women. 'More than 400 women have endured the pain and suffering of being kidnapped, raped and sometimes sold,' she told reporters at a demonstration in Baghdad's Fardous Square. 'This violence is still a daily occurrence, especially on the streets of Baghdad, without attracting the least attention of the (US) soldiers.' Mohammed said the attacks had created a climate of fear among women which meant few dared venture out of their homes.... Saihan Ali, a 35-year-old health ministry employee...agreed. 'Before, I would take a walk after work, but now I quickly return home, and I'm always on the alert because anything can happen,' she said."
http://jordantimes.com/Mon/news/news5.htm

[Tinoire]

58. It certainly wouldn't suck 1/10 as much as it sucks now.

When did the Iraqi people EVER ask us to come liberate them? Oh, that's right, Chalabi assured us :eyes:

What's with all this liberation shit? If the US government is so interested in liberation, I would like to be liberated from

Bush
obscene taxes for which I get very little in return
crime
illiteracy in my country
hunger in my country
exploitation of the poor in my country
the DLC
PNAC

and that's just off the top of the head for starters!

[Karenina]

62. HALLO!

Naaaa, Du!

The *forces that have seized America's government daily painting targets on the foreheads of their "betters" worldwide...

[Tinoire]

86. Hi Karenina!

What are they saying about this in your neck of the woods?

Your input would be appreciated! :)

I read that Germany (France & Russia) were willing if the US steps aside. What are people saying in the street?

Grusse from California

[CoffeePlease1947]

100. Suit up Bush and send him in

I don't have a problem with troops in Iraq. I have a problem with troops under the command of Bush being in Iraq. Bush and company are the ones that caused this problem. He needs to be fired and replaced with someone that can get us out without leaving Iraq in a mess, or at least in better shape than we found it.

Mike

[gulliver]

31. We are trapped.

We couldn't get out if we wanted to. That's the scary part. The invasion is irreversible and dangerous. That's one reason it should not have been done.

Doctors don't start an operation that could kill the patient without planning what to do in advance. But that's what the Bushies and their leader (Cheney) did.

And we can't back out of it. If we do, Iraq will turn into a nest of terrorists that would make Afghanistan look like a church carnival. And that may happen whether we stay or not.

Lives and billions wasted for no threat? No. Lives and billions wasted to create a worse threat. Way to go Bushies!

[StandWatie]

32. I doubt that..

I don't think it would become a "nest of terrorists" or that there is any reason it should. It's a fairly well educated country that understands full well the need for trade and global acceptance unlike the illiterate Taliban.

[gulliver]

40. OK. Maybe they would only be another ...

... Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 hijackers were "well educated" too.

I don't think you are being realistic if you seriously think that we could just pull out and say "Take it from here, Iraqis." No one, including the Bushies thinks that.

[realFedUp]

42. well, let's look at Afghanistan

where are the troops stationed there? Kabul, along the
Pakistan border? Along the pipeline being built?
There are peace-keeping troops from France and Germany
there also.
Bush has thrown Afghanistan onto the bottom of his
to-do list seemingly, but no one seems bothered by
the chaos there.

Are you bothered?

[gulliver]

46. Afghanistan is amazing to me.

How soon we forget! I read yesterday that U.S. troops shipping to Iraq only had 6 months off after leaving Afghanistan. I guess that's (arrogant, overrated, skeletal) Rumsfeld's new concept of troop rotation. What a brilliant man he must be. Just ask him.

Still, I think the danger of Afghanistan now pales in comparison to Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. Yes, Bush letting Afghanistan fail again breaks his word and reverts Afghanistan back to a terrorist haven (and world class heroin producer). But I think Bush will probably shore up Afghanistan in time for the 2004 election.

The other countries worry me because they have money and lots of intelligent citizens (like the hijackers) capable of thinking up things a lot worse than car bombings. Yes, Afghanistan disturbs me a lot. Not so much as a direct threat (although it is) but as a model for the lossage the Bushies could have created for the U.S. in Iraq.

[realFedUp]

48. and that's what America thought after Russia left...

but roving bands of warlords are back in business
with the big cheese hired by America looking the
other way...and opium production is up. Perfect
place to regroup.

[StandWatie]

44. the Saudi Facade is there for your benefit

If you seriously believe that government is antagonistic to the US on any level your analysis can be discounted completely.

[realFedUp]

47. and the Saudi Facade is

the royalty? Weren't the royals funding terrorist
schools and terrorists on 9/11?

[gulliver]

49. So then it can't be discounted completely...

... because no one would suggest the Saudi government is "antagonistic to the U.S.". And I most certainly didn't. The Saudi government is very, very friendly with the U.S. government and many, many U.S. businesses (from telecom, to oil production equipment suppliers, to military sales). But the Saudi people, including a lion's share of Bin Laden supporters are another matter entirely.

The problem with the Saudis is that they can't control their own people, some of whom have a lot of money, and some of whom are more than willing to attack U.S. interests.

[flyingfish]

70. The US owes the Saudis way too much

Oil, aid to the Contras in Nicaragua, matching the CIA dollar for dollar in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Bush-Saudi connections, etc...

[Iluvleiberman]

38. I agree a serious terrorists hideout like Somalia and Afghanistan

Everyone owns a gun and everyone hates the US.

All the aid companies are LEAVING.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

65. I don't think we should have gone...

But I don't think we should leave the country in shambles like it is now. It was our choice to go into the country, now we have to make it our priority to clean up our mess.

[flyingfish]

69. We broke it, we buy it.

If only so many of those idiotic Toby Keith fans would have realized that invading Iraq meant THEIR tax dollars paying for it now and for years to come.

How many right wing conservatives are going to be happy when THEIR taxes inevitably go up to pay for Iraq?

[IndianaGreen]

71. We incarcerate criminals, we don't let them "clean" their mess

What we did in Iraq was a war of aggression. America joined the ranks of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. The only thing we owe the people of Iraq are massive reparation payments, apologies, and immediate withdrawal of all American troops and personnel.

The only thing we owe to justice is to extradite Tommy Franks, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell to The Hague to face trial for their war crimes!

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

76. Absolutely

But I think we need to help them rebuild the country, through reparations or whatever- it needs to get done.

[JohnKleeb]

78. of course we need to help them but we shouldnt put our soldiers in harms

way either I dont know about you all but I am sick and tired about hearing about soldiers dying.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

89. Agreed

But unfortunately, I think that we need to help the people of Iraq rebuild. If that means sending UN, peace officers, or other neutral parties, relief organizations in when the time is right, if that means the United States should be forced to pay reparations to rebuild Iraq... then so be it. We can't be the little kid that throws paint all over the walls and then expects to not be made to clean it up.

[JohnKleeb]

93. Youre right about that

We should fix our mistakes I agree with you on that, I just dont wanna put the troops in harm's way.

[dudeness]

82. you can add tony blair and john howard

to your list of war criminals Indiana..Iraqis will never trust the UN or any other coalition force..we must be forgetting that over ONE MILLION Iraqis died because of UN sanctions..they were bombed for over 12 years after DS1 under the auspices of the UN..the UN is only seen throughout the M/E as an extention of US policy..I agree with Indiana..we owe repatriations..forgiveness and support to set up elections..who the Iraqis decide to lead them is their choice no one elses..

[FreeperSlayer]

85. really?

[Solly Mack]

95. I agree. We don't need to be there

but then I'm biased in many ways. I never thought we should go in the first place...and well, I do have a husband,nephew and friends over there.

[not systems]

103. we will lose - right after declaring victory

It seems that civil war is inevitable in Iraq.
The forces of division that where suppressed by
Sadam are rising. With UN bombing and the al-Hakim
assassination the empire builder have lost the plot.
A coherent narative explaining what we are doing and
why is AWOL. The growing cost estimates and deaths
in Afganistan are shaking the war's supporters.

The flypaper neo-con crap that has replaced the
swamp draining and cauldronization crap is so thin
that even the war party media may not be able to
sell it.

So what is left to do for Bush.

1) Raising a new Iraqi army
2) Withdraw to firebases
3) Stand up a new dictator
4) Declare victory
5) Run

I am not very hopeful about an better outcome.
For the sake of the Iraqi people I hope something
positive could happen but the sooner we leave the
better. Maybe Iraq will devolve into three states
if we leave. If we don't I can only expect loss
waste and death for them and us.

This war has failed.