Escape from Iraq

@SplitZip (1488)
Portugal
December 16, 2006 11:31am CST
With all the discussion about the plan (or lack of a plan) to get the american army out of Iraq, I can't help thinking about this disturbing pattern of armed conflicts started by or having the involvement of America. Americans get involved, ravage a certain country, then things get too bloody, the political administration changes or crumbles under public pressure, the army gets shipped out in a hurry, then many decades later it comes back to bite the americans in the a-s-s in the form of extremist/fundamentalist groups who, ofttimes once funded by America, are now waging war against it. Has this nation-building strategy EVER worked for any other nation other than Japan (and perhaps West Germany, to some degree)? And in any case, regardless of what you think of the war, what do you think of the consequences of simply pulling out the army from Iraq? Because all this talk about nuclear expansion in the Middle East should really get us all a bit nervous, what happens in the region may one day affect us all.
2 people like this
17 responses
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
16 Dec 06
Nuclear expansion first took place in the USA. Was it not the USA that almost wiped out Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Sure, what happens in the Middle East affected all of us the day the USA government started to give them nukes in exchange for black gold/Texas tea: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam_Rumsfeld_GoldSpurs.html
• United States
19 Dec 06
My dear, like most ignoramus, you seem to forget that we have arms and a nuclear crisis mainly because of the USA, Russia and Israel. Please see: 1). A Nuclear crisis - http://www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000032.shtml 2). Democracy in America - http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html Despite the political ideologies of Kim Jong-il (and there is no political ideology that is without flaws!), I think the man is a revolutionist. I, too, say, it will have to be one standard for everyone or none whatsoever!
• Canada
16 Dec 06
lol@black gold..texas tea...very good!
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
16 Dec 06
I'm glad you brought this up. Many people claim that it was not necessary for the americans to drop those two bombs because Japan was about to surrender. They did it to test the bombs and to cut off the soviets, who were getting pretty close to invading Japan. Those were extreme times and so they took extreme actions. We are living in extreme times once again and if extremists get the atom bomb, I don't think they'll think twice about using it if it comes to that. That's pretty scary. The world escaped the threat of atomic holocaust once, now it seems like we are walking towards it again. Right now we are in the comfort of our homes and people getting killed in a far off land doesn't really bother most people, we still get on with our lives. When you leave a country in such a mess, without law, without order, bad elements will develop. If the US pull out right now, I think bad things might happen which might after us all. You know that saying "may you live in interesting times"? I disagree, may we live in boring but happy times.
• Canada
17 Dec 06
The sad truth is that going into Iraq was the biggest--and now irreversible--mistake the United States of America ever made. The consequences of this decision is now a severely divided Iraqi nation with civil war and extremist and terrorist acts occurring on a daily basis. Now the USA is in far-too-deep to pull out without causing severe ramifications for the US and the rest of the world. You mention that this conquering strategy "worked" in Japan. The main reason for this is that Japan was a very tightly knit nation with very loyal citizens. To this day the Japanese hold great respect for the ruling family even though they have no tangible legal power (though their influence can be quite significant). Iraq is a divided country on a long-but-apparently-forgotten war: the war between the Shiite and Sunni muslims. This was the situation in Iraq when the USA first got involved with Iraq and endorsed the CIA operation to place Saddam at its helm. Saddam turned on the US and told 'em to take a flying leap (the second failed attempt to 'puppetize' a country with a US-selected leader, the second I know of being Cuba where the USA put Fidel Castro into power). Now the USA went back in, let out their temper tantrum on Saddam Hussein with a barrage of smartbombs, and now Iraq is back to its original state as a divided civilly-warring country and to make matters worse a lot of Iraqis aren't too keen on the extreme measures used by the USA to remove one man from power that the majority of Iraqis didn't want there to begin with. This contrasts sharply to Japan where people were willing to die to serve their emperor and fulfill his vision for Japan's destiny. Japan was not a divided country so there was no infighting once the emperor (Japan) was defeated. This is why Japan was able to be rebuilt.
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
19 Dec 06
Yes, precisely, I was asking if anyone could remember another instance in time, other than Japan/West Germany, where this policy had worked. Because I can't remember any... I'd also say a lot had to do with the fact that Japan was struck by two massive atom bombs, that they were involved in a world war and because they'd rather surrender to the americans than to the soviets (the japanese emperor was given an "easy" escape by surrendering). I do agree that a lot of people (not all) were glad to see Saddam gone. As someone once put it "all I know is that I'm seeing dancing iraqis on my TV!". But they're probably not so glad to be invaded like they were. But my question is: are they really better off without the US army in the region? And also, if they pull out, the whole campaign has been a tremendous waste of time, money, resources and lives, because they won't establish a stabilizing force in the Middle East and possibly won't even get any cheap oil out of the deal.
@norteh (615)
• Netherlands
17 Dec 06
You (and others) have to understand one thing about war and occupation (or liberation). The government of the attacked country, has to surrender and have to sign up for peace. Germany did; they surrendered and accepted the conditions for peace. Japan did; and it was a strong peace they offered the usa. Irak never surrendered. They kept resisting the usa. Many other countries saw an opportunity to even some scores with the usa. Not to my likings, but the usa can't win this war, although they won the battle. All they can do, is stay in the area, and support the government of irak, or support the still willing people/groups in irak. But in fact, it's lost for the majority of the people in irak.
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
19 Dec 06
"All they can do, is stay in the area, and support the government of irak, or support the still willing people/groups in irak." That's my question :) If they pull out, won't it be chaotic? OR will the situation resolve itself after the american army leaves? Who knows for sure? But I'm leaning towards the first scenario. I'm a pessimist.
@ESKARENA1 (18261)
17 Dec 06
its not iraq that bothers me its iran the next war , how much lomger are we going to let this continue ?
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
19 Dec 06
If Iraq becomes a no-man's land, Iran will probably go in there and have something to say... most likely?
• Canada
16 Dec 06
and more importantly, could Granny Clampett have beaten Hilary Rodham-Clinton had the two been running for Possum Queen?
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
16 Dec 06
Indubitably!
• India
17 Dec 06
thats true
@LoYaL132 (335)
• Netherlands
17 Dec 06
I am wondering what they are doing right now there in Iraq. Is it just for the oil to get more money, or is it really for the terrorists. I wonder the first thing because I saw some documentarys that the American people take many oil from out Iraq. I dont see the point why they are killing innocent (and non-innocent) people just for oil.
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
19 Dec 06
Regardless what some people say, you have to remember that the US leaped out to the rescue of Kuwait in the 1990's. Surely not out of good will alone. Oil is big business, oil sustains countries' economies, so it's natural that they'd do ANYTHING for oil. Heck, people have killed each other for a lot less...
@moneymind (10510)
• Philippines
17 Dec 06
the case of iraq was plain lie and or deceit, its not the war of the u.s. of a. but the war of your president... bush. ignoring the u.n.'s view before the iraq and going it alone sort of made the u.s. foriegn policy the bully foreign policy. now your top politcal leadership is looking for ways to avert the situation in iraq before it spills out all over the region but still not getting or listening to the opinion of the u.n. body, as they say u.s. cannot do it alone but it seems that you have a hard headed president who thinks he can do it alone or dirty harry sort of. greetings. : )
@totomon78 (393)
• Philippines
17 Dec 06
split its not that us just gets off right away when it turns bloody....its just that when body count or injured us soldiers starts to hit the limit of forcasted casualties...us values its soldiers, so if thing is not worth paying with lives of soldiers for a conflict that cant be policed or fixed since involved in the conflict doesnt want to be helped then its time to go....remember mugadishu
@SplitZip (1488)
• Portugal
19 Dec 06
Yes, that's what I mean by turning bloody... because... well, if there are only foreign casualties, most americans might not agree with it, but they won't take serious action. Of course, I understand that it's natural for people to wish for the safe return of their families. But if it backfires and Iraq becomes a new breeding ground for extremists, it won't benefit anyone. What I believe, is that it's a bad move to just pull out the army and leave Iraq to its own (mis)fortune, because the future consequences might be dreadful. I do believe a lot of people in Iraq want the americans to stay, because if they leave, then absolutely NO ONE will take charge of keeping the public peace. I might be wrong, but remember that vandals took over the country as soon as the regime fell. What will prevent them from taking over again if there's no real force on the ground?
@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
17 Dec 06
I have talk ed to and do business with a feller here in the U.S.A. that is from Iraq and he was so happy when we went in and got Saddum out . He saw what ahd happened to all those families that Saddam killed some was his own family. So if the goverenment over there could come to agrement we could get our shouliers out of there and come home and watch our borders!!! We have let every one in legally but some still come over illigally yup we should come home and stop all aleins getting into our country and let the other countries take care of their selves . Iraq was already a bomb feild and a total wreck before we got there The news people dont tell all the good stories that happen over there just give us every gory detail they need to do more on what good we have done and it wasnt just Bush this was handed to him from other presidents it all comes down the line from one pres to the other
@rakeshdas (427)
• India
17 Dec 06
Oh man !!!! Iraq now the LAND OF HORROR these days :x
@HerrHaar (16)
• United States
17 Dec 06
Basic missuse of the military. The military is great at breaking things and killing people. They are mot meant to be a police force or a nation builder. Let's break more stuff and kill more people. Smash the crap out of their infrastructures and they wont have time to screw with other people! HH
@isha900 (1459)
• India
17 Dec 06
yes this is right this is basic essu
• Italy
17 Dec 06
The war in Iraq is very terrible . I hate it and bush should reteared the troup
• Italy
17 Dec 06
It's very important to escape from Iraq!!! Great Discussion!!!
• United States
17 Dec 06
They need to get those guys out of there...I think that it is pointless
@lulylove (1560)
• Brazil
17 Dec 06
The vision that I am liveing in Brazil is: U.S.A. is practically the main reason for everything what it happens in the world does not exist no bad thing that happens that U.S.A. is not involved. I know that nor always she is for the bad side, but exactly thus they permanessem involved, exactly that they are wanting alone to help. I believe that they finish taking pains them paises more fond and generating more confusion.
@isha900 (1459)
• India
17 Dec 06
bcoz of them fear i think so
@shineison (874)
• Uganda
17 Dec 06
First of all USA is the one main reason for the problems in the whole world. if he thinks about positive not war then every thing will be right, due to usa Goverment many people are dieng in the IRAQ as well American army also