Should I stay or should I go.

[TSD]

Is the media never happy?



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100828/ap_ ... se_workers



Complain about being in Iraq, now complaining about leaving.... wtf are we supposed to do.

 

[sth]

We have to get out of there. I'm not going to lie I never supported going in. I support the shit out of the troops that's why I didn't want to go in. But lets face it now the government in Baghdad is hopelessly deadlocked. The Sunnis think the Shiite parties in charge are bought and sold by Iran. I think they might be right. The Sunnis will never accept an Iranian backed government. There is going to be a civil war eventually. Our guys have done an excellent job stopping it. The Sunnis trust us way more than the Shiites but we can't stay forever. The Shiites only tolerate us, if we stayed longer than next year they would turn hostile especially if they felt we were protecting the Sunnis. So lets get out before the shit really hits the fan.

 

[Guest]

which is part of the reason they didn't remove Sadamm the first time.



Is this a good thing? Would there have been "revolution/civil war" with Sadamm and his regime in place? Probably not. There for it was the less of two evils. Iranian controlled Iraq, or Sadamms Regime?



We just couldn't keep our nose out of yet another non conflict. And or create a conflict.



I have no doubt that Sadam was violating UN Sanctions, but there were how many of the Axis countries helping him violate those sanctions on the premise of money over all? France, Germany, Russia..... Three of the largest at least.



Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead it was a personal vendetta, by a whacked President, going after someone who tried to perpetrate the assassination of his Daddy.



I did not support the "invasion" either. Afghanistan was another egg. Even there, after knowing the war/police action Russia adventured on I might have 2nd guessed it. Especially knowing there was no way in hell Pakistan was going to cooperate.

 

[TSD]

[quote name="R K"]which is part of the reason they didn't remove Sadamm the first time.



Is this a good thing? Would there have been "revolution/civil war" with Sadamm and his regime in place? Probably not. There for it was the less of two evils. Iranian controlled Iraq, or Sadamms Regime?



We just couldn't keep our nose out of yet another non conflict. And or create a conflict.



I have no doubt that Sadam was violating UN Sanctions, but there were how many of the Axis countries helping him violate those sanctions on the premise of money over all? France, Germany, Russia..... Three of the largest at least.



Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead it was a personal vendetta, by a whacked President, going after someone who tried to perpetrate the assassination of his Daddy.



I did not support the "invasion" either. Afghanistan was another egg. Even there, after knowing the war/police action Russia adventured on I might have 2nd guessed it. Especially knowing there was no way in hell Pakistan was going to cooperate.[/quote]





I'm not going to pretend what we should have done re: afghanistan, Iraq obviously was an idiotic decision. As far as afghanistan is concerned though, a few cruise missles were not going to cut it this time. Clinton-esque terrorism retaltion simply wasn't going to cut it for this.



Bush was fucked in that respect either way, maybe invading afghanistan wasn't the best idea, but if he didnt do something high profile the people would have wanted his head on a spit. Perhaps now that would be hailing him as a great president who didnt let his emotions take over, or perhaps people would see him as the biggest pussy on the face of the planet. Im sure had the Bush Administration known now what they knew then alot would have been done differently.





As far as iraq is concerned, its our mess. It doesn't help when we are painted as bad for being there and painted as bad for leaving. I don't know what they want from us. They should just put it to a vote to the Iraqi people, if they want us to stay we'll stay if they want us to leave we'll leave, that way the decision was theirs and you can point the finger at them.





And this hindsight claiming we are doing it for the freedom of the iraqi people is BS. There are plenty of countries suffering horrible regimes now where the irregulars would be on our side 100% if we invaded to depose the ruling party, yet we arent helping them i.e. Burma.

 

[bri]

Hun, I thought this was gonna be about you, and you know what my answer would be.





As for Iraq. I say go. They have had 9 years of American presence. They have no incentive to stand on their own two feet as long as they can just stand back and hold our coat while we fight their battles for them. We should have been out of there a long time ago.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

[quote name="bri"]Hun, I thought this was gonna be about you, and you know what my answer would be.





As for Iraq. I say go. They have had 9 years of American presence. They have no incentive to stand on their own two feet as long as they can just stand back and hold our coat while we fight their battles for them. We should have been out of there a long time ago.[/quote]

Can I ask, in your opinion, when should we have left?



This isn't a question for Bri, this is for all the armchair politicians out there.

 

[bri]

[quote name="bubbleheadchief"]

Can I ask, in your opinion, when should we have left?[/quote]





In my opinion we should never have been there in the first place.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

[quote name="bri"]





In my opinion we should never have been there in the first place.[/quote]

Seeing as you answered this, why in your opinion, should we never have gone? Going off the intelligence as it was known THEN, not as it is known now, why would you have not gone in? Remember this, the intel presented by several countries, not just the US and UK, said that Iraq had or was getting various WMDs and chemical weapons.



I have no issue with the fact we went in, Hussein was as big a genocidal maniac as Hitler (although nowhere near the numbers) and Pol Pot, and Milosevic. I do not think wew should have beent here as long as we have. HOWEVER, unlike a lot of people feel, I don't think just up and leaving them to fend for themselves is the right answer. I dont know about you, I was raised to clean up my mess, and this IS our mess.

 

[sth]

Because it didn't matter what the intelligence said. So what did they have exactly? According to the intelligence a few scattered chemical weapons? Which they had used when the Iran/Iraq war. Our government said nothing about that. There was no reaction by the White House to the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. Why did we attack them then? What new threat were they presenting? Iraq hadn't been a threat for at least 5 years by 03. Iraq was a powder keg and 03 Sunnis holding dominance over Shiites. It was obvious there would be score settling after Saddam was removed. Iran and North Korea have large stockpiles of Chemical weapons Iraq had barely any according to the intelligence (which was bogus anyway). I'm sorry we can't stay forever. Not to mention the Shiites want us out now. They would start attacking us soon because we protect the Sunnis. So we have to get out post haste.

 

[bri]

That place was a mess long before we got there. We have provided them with tools and resources for years at a tremendous cost to American taxpayers and a tremendous cost in American lives. At some point they need to take responsibility for cleaning up their own mess. Tell me, when do you think enough is enough? 10 more years? 20? 50?





We need to put the money and energy into taking care of this country.

 

[Pez68]

[quote name="bubbleheadchief"]

Seeing as you answered this, why in your opinion, should we never have gone? Going off the intelligence as it was known THEN, not as it is known now, why would you have not gone in? Remember this, the intel presented by several countries, not just the US and UK, said that Iraq had or was getting various WMDs and chemical weapons.



I have no issue with the fact we went in, Hussein was as big a genocidal maniac as Hitler (although nowhere near the numbers) and Pol Pot, and Milosevic. I do not think wew should have beent here as long as we have. HOWEVER, unlike a lot of people feel, I don't think just up and leaving them to fend for themselves is the right answer. I dont know about you, I was raised to clean up my mess, and this IS our mess.[/quote]



Why Iraq? Why not "invade" countries in Africa that are ruled by people 10 times worse, where the slaughter of innocents is 10 times worse than it was in Iraq? Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, DRC, Nigeria, Somalia, etc? Simple enough answer. The "Iraq War" was a son finishing the job his father couldn't. All of the "intel" I personally believe was fabricated, or came from "sources" that wanted Saddam out of power, and would say anything that was necessary to do so. It was a farce from start to finish. Our interests in Iraq have always been about the oil. We don't help out these other countries in Africa, where the genocide is much larger and has been happening for much longer, because they are poor, and we benefit in no way from getting involved. How much has Iraq's oil production increased since we got involved there? How much will their production continue to increase, given all the money we are throwing into their infrastructure? More of the rich getting richer....

 

[bubbleheadchief]

[quote name="sth"]Because it didn't matter what the intelligence said. So what did they have exactly? According to the intelligence a few scattered chemical weapons? Which they had used when the Iran/Iraq war. Our government said nothing about that. There was no reaction by the White House to the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. Why did we attack them then? What new threat were they presenting? Iraq hadn't been a threat for at least 5 years by 03. Iraq was a powder keg and 03 Sunnis holding dominance over Shiites. It was obvious there would be score settling after Saddam was removed. Iran and North Korea have large stockpiles of Chemical weapons Iraq had barely any according to the intelligence (which was bogus anyway). I'm sorry we can't stay forever. Not to mention the Shiites want us out now. They would start attacking us soon because we protect the Sunnis. So we have to get out post haste.[/quote]

Let me preface this by saying, seriously there is no right or wrong answer to this, as you and I both know, and hopefully no one will go "postal" from here on out and start calling names and going with the personal attacks. I am just after an actual discussion not blinded by the "if your family had suffered...." stuff in previous threads.

I disagree with your opinion of ignore the intel because they havent done anythign recently. The truth of the matter is, although he (Saddam) let the inspectors in, they were not allowed to do anything or go anywhere, in between his bouts of "get the hell out of my country" and expelling them. You dont do that unless you have something to hide. This again falls into you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. We played worlds police force, like we always do. I seem to recall huge uproar by the US when Saddam was found out to have used gas on his own country. But this wasn't enough according to world opinion to do anything at the time.

North Korea is a joke, as far as it's militray and arsenal goes.......I ahve heard nothign about chem weps. I do however expect somethign to come to a head with that psycho in Iran. Just as I expect that moron Chavez to really cause all kinds of whoa n Central/South America.

As far as getting out of Iraq, I agree, it is time to let them take over, but you dont go in, make a mess then just say okay, "we're done...it's all yours. Figure it out." I hate to say it, but I think the Iraqis should consider doing basically the same thing as the Yugoslavs did and just split into two or three seperate countries, Shi-ites and Sunnis......because as you said neither trusts the other.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

[quote name="Pez68"]



Why Iraq? Why not "invade" countries in Africa that are ruled by people 10 times worse, where the slaughter of innocents is 10 times worse than it was in Iraq? Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, DRC, Nigeria, Somalia, etc? Simple enough answer. The "Iraq War" was a son finishing the job his father couldn't. All of the "intel" I personally believe was fabricated, or came from "sources" that wanted Saddam out of power, and would say anything that was necessary to do so. It was a farce from start to finish. Our interests in Iraq have always been about the oil. We don't help out these other countries in Africa, where the genocide is much larger and has been happening for much longer, because they are poor, and we benefit in no way from getting involved. How much has Iraq's oil production increased since we got involved there? How much will their production continue to increase, given all the money we are throwing into their infrastructure? More of the rich getting richer....[/quote]

Oh man, I would LOVE to discuss this one with you pez, I really would. But I can't. Just leave it at that, I can't. I can't even go offline about it.

You do realize Iraq has never supplied more than around 6% of our oil though, at any time? most of our pil ocmes from Venezuela, and the Saudi's.



No, let me re-phrase this a bit....as long as I dont go certain places I can talk about this. Yes I want to see us go in and do more for central africa, more humanitarian efforts. And I agree there are some world leaders that put those others to I mentioned into the minor leagues with the attorcities they have done to their own people. trustme on this one....I am in the same ball park as you wanting to help.

 

[Pez68]

[quote name="bubbleheadchief"]

Oh man, I would LOVE to discuss this one with you pez, I really would. But I can't. Just leave it at that, I can't. I can't even go offline about it.

You do realize Iraq has never supplied more than around 6% of our oil though, at any time? most of our pil ocmes from Venezuela, and the Saudi's.[/quote]



It's not about them supplying us oil. It never has been. I think we import more oil from Canada than any other country, if I'm not mistaken. It is about the contracts and rights to oil fields that US companies have gained since we invaded. It's about the money those US companies are going to make off of the oil production and the revamping of their oil fields and technology. Companies like Exxon-Mobil, for example. The same companies that were purchasing rights to Iraqi oil fields at auction last year. It's funny how BP and Exxon-Mobil were two of the very first companies to benefit from the stabilization of Iraq, when the US and UK were the ones pushing the WMD nonsense down our throats. Not really. :lol:



It's always been about Iraq's oil. The more oil Iraq produces, the more competition in the middle east between oil producers, the better it is for the biggest oil consuming country on the planet. The plan has always been to stabilize Iraq, boost their oil production, and in turn destabilize OPEC and oil prices. Boosting Iraq's oil production only hurts OPEC's grip on the market. The more oil Iraq produces, the more oil prices will go down. They are sitting on the third largest oil reserve on the planet, with who knows how much untapped oil still buried out there in the desert. Not about the oil? That's a really hard sell.



Edit: I'm not saying it is ALL about the oil, just saying the oil was a major factor in "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

 

[jakobeast]

I can't buy the "it was all for oil/oil companies" argument. I see where it comes from, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that was proven. But for the US and UK to destabilize OPEC over scores of years doesn't help them.



Let's also not forget China and India are going to be if not already larger consumers of oil then the US.

 

[TSD]

To beast and pez above. In my personal opinion, speculating on the "true" nature of the Iraqi invasion is almost an impossible nut to crack. As far as the general public is concerned this will never leave the realm of speculation. We only have what the government tells us. They say it was for WMD's and Freedom, whether or not thats true we will never know for sure.





From my standpoint WMD's although foolhearty is plausible. "Freedom" is a fat load of hogwash, sure after we were already there it became a goal, but if anyone says that was a cassus belli, its BS, we would be at war with half the 3rd world if we went to war over freedom.



As far as oil, if I ever see the benefit at the pump I will believe it.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I agree with what TSD said. If it were about oil, then we wouldn't still be hovering just below $3/gallon.



I think it was payback and removal of Saddam. I think it was about faulty intel on the amount of WMD's. (I don't understand why so many don't consider gas a WMD). Like many of you have said, it is a combination of many factors.



My theory all along was that we were ramping up troop numbers to surround Iran on either side. Now that we are removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan my theory is shot to hell.

 

[TSD]

[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]I agree with what TSD said. If it were about oil, then we wouldn't still be hovering just below $3/gallon.



I think it was payback and removal of Saddam. I think it was about faulty intel on the amount of WMD's. (I don't understand why so many don't consider gas a WMD). Like many of you have said, it is a combination of many factors.



My theory all along was that we were ramping up troop numbers to surround Iran on either side. Now that we are removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan my theory is shot to hell.[/quote]





Well if any sort of western friendly democratic governments plant roots and hold in Iraq and Afghanistan, its just as well.. Although, once we are completely pulled out of those regions if an armed conflict immidiately occured between Iran and Iraq or Afghanistan, I doubt we would get very militarily involved after 10+ years of occupation. The public is definitely weary of war.

 

[Pez68]

[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]I agree with what TSD said. If it were about oil, then we wouldn't still be hovering just below $3/gallon.



I think it was payback and removal of Saddam. I think it was about faulty intel on the amount of WMD's. (I don't understand why so many don't consider gas a WMD). Like many of you have said, it is a combination of many factors.



My theory all along was that we were ramping up troop numbers to surround Iran on either side. Now that we are removing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan my theory is shot to hell.[/quote]



Give it a couple years... BP and Exxon Mobil just got oil field rights to the biggest and second biggest oil fields in Iraq, respectively, around a year ago. It will be a couple years before you see the oil production really take off. Here's something to consider. The bids that Exxon Mobil put in on the West Qurna oil field, has their oil output increasing by nearly TEN TIMES what it currently is, by 2015. It currenly produces around 270,000 barrels a day, and they are hoping to produce 2.35 million barrels a day... The BP bid has oil output on the Rumaila oil field increasing from 1.07 million to 2.85 million by 2017. They plan to increase production by some 500,000 barrels a day on just those two oil fields, by the end of 2010.... And those are just the two largest oil fields, and the two largest companies. Those oil companies are estimating tens of billions of dollars worth in oil output, AFTER the cut goes to the Iraqi government... There are countless other oil companies involved over there as well, doing much the same. Iraq has an estimated 10 TRILLION dollars worth of oil sitting under the sand... OPEC has quotas in place on their member countries' oil production. They keep production down so they can keep the price high. Iraq currently doesn't adhere to any quotas, because they need as much income as they can generate from selling oil. An increase in Iraqi oil production will drive down the price per barrel of oil, assuming oil consumption doesn't go insane in the next 5 years.



Just saying.... There is a lot more at stake in Iraq than our government and big business want you to believe. We will keep enough troops in that country to make sure the areas surrounding these oil fields are stable and secure.... There will never NOT be a U.S. presence in Iraq. You can quote me on that.

 

[supraman]

A former co-worker pointed out something to me. Having an ally in Iraq and in Afghanistan allows us to put tremendous military pressure on Iran since Iraq is on one side and Afghanistan is on the other. Do I believe that's why we invaded Iraq? I dunno as good as a theory as the others.



The whole WMDs threat, I don't really understand why we are so terrified of other countries getting WMDs. I understand that they can attack us with them but okay fine they wipeout one of our cities or sevrely hurt it. We make their country glow nuclear green.



I have no doubt in my mind that if a country hits us with a WMD we will just take them off the map.



Also the whole Dubya finishing what his daddy started argument I don't buy it either. Daddy had the means to finish the job but they didn't do it because they didn't want to. They set Sadam's military back 10 years and drove them out of Kuwait. Mission Accomplished.



The oil argument is feasible but I find it hard to believe that our government is THAT corrupt and anyway wouldn't it be more profitable to declare Iraq US territory so the oil is considered American oil.



As for when we should have pulled out. We should have given the Iraqi government a timetable as soon as their government was formed. And kept to the timetable like clockwork and if they weren't ready by then, tough shit we gave you the chance you failed deal with it.