PDA

View Full Version : What is our Responsibility to Iraq?




adpierce
09-06-2007, 11:57 AM
This is the hammering point of the other Republican party candidates as illustrated by Brownback in last night's debate. They say essentially that we are responsible for the mess in Iraq, therefore we are the ones who have to clean up this mess. Nobody seems to challenging this basic premise behind their arguments. Did we in fact break Iraq, and if we did are we liable to stay until things are restored to the way things were(or better)? I leave the thread open to you, but I'll simply say that I am negative on both counts. I don't think we broke Iraq it was already broken before we got there we just exposed what was already under the surface of Iraqi politics. It was under the surface because Saddam was a totalitarian dictator who slammed down dissent with an iron fist. We removed him and the cracks became apparent to all. Second even if you say that is "breaking Iraq" by implication, we cannot restore Iraq to the way it was because it was totalitarian, therefore we remain committed to restoring Iraq to a state which it has never achieved (true democracy) and arguably never can achieve unless done from a willingness of their own. Our obligation therefore to the Iraqi people is to allow them to discover what it means to have a civil society on their own (there is no other way). I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

kylejack
09-06-2007, 11:59 AM
They want us OUT, for the most part. Our responsibility is to honor their wishes and stop inflaming their citizens against each other, to leave so that they can begin the healing process and the uncoerced political dialogue.

FSP-Rebel
09-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Let them keep their oil to make up for the mess. Instead of the neos gaining the bred, let the Iraqis.

constituent
09-06-2007, 12:03 PM
Let them keep their oil to make up for the mess. Instead of the neos gaining the bred, let the Iraqis.

amen. and give them some credit...

they can take care of themselves much better than we can take care of them. i'm so sick of the white man's burden argument.

slantedview
09-06-2007, 12:04 PM
Their is no correct answer to this, only lots of answers that may or may not end up with a positive result. Thus, we must go with the answer that would appear to have the best all around benefit, which is, to pull out.

Shink
09-06-2007, 12:04 PM
Plain and simple: APOLOGIZE SINCERELY, LEAVE, BUILD GOOD RELATIONS. This will be done by diplomacy from someone who cares about people rather than oil profits, and by trading with them to help out their devastated economy.

Brasil Branco
09-06-2007, 12:07 PM
Leave.

Ask Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria for help.

Approach the United Nations.

Throw some money.

That's it.

Kregener
09-06-2007, 12:11 PM
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/Chaostan.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/chaostan_375.jpg

Chaostan has ALWAYS been in turmoil and it always will be.

Santana28
09-06-2007, 12:14 PM
When someone is wronged, they demand justice and compensation. Obviously, there is no way we will ever be able to bring back the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost.

The Iraqi people are very clear - they do NOT want our military in (whats left of) their country. The FIRST thing we can do to make things "right" is to honor their request to leave.

We had no right invading Iraq to begin with. That being said, we did it - and i think we do have some responsibility to make it right. But at the same time, the Iraqis themselves are responsible for the direction of their country after we are gone. If they want a civil war, or breaking the country up into seperate religious states - thats their job, not ours. But i think we should help them monetarily and materially as much as we are able to. I also think that individuals who wish to assist should certainly be allowed to do so. But militarily and security-wise... there's nothing else we can, or should do.

We can stop destabilizing the region, and address the root issues as to why they hate us. That can't be accomplished at the barrel of a gun unless the ultimate goal is an empire and ownership of the entire middle east... and obviously the American people are not interested in that.

adpierce
09-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Are you absolutely sure throwing more money into Iraq is a good thing. Will they not just take those dollars we give them and buy weapons with them. They're in a civil war right now. If we were to withdraw, I wouldn't even consider giving them money until they have a peaceful civil society otherwise we're just paving the way for warlords to take over that country. Not that it won't happen anyways, but at least the U.S. won't have backed any of them financially.

Brasil Branco
09-06-2007, 12:22 PM
Are you absolutely sure throwing more money into Iraq is a good thing. Will they not just take those dollars we give them and buy weapons with them. They're in a civil war right now. If we were to withdraw, I wouldn't even consider giving them money until they have a peaceful civil society otherwise we're just paving the way for warlords to take over that country. Not that it won't happen anyways, but at least the U.S. won't have backed any of them financially.

Well, I could see micro payments to Arabian contractors for the reconstruction of schools, hospitals, and houses. The United States just has to give the money to the right people, not do what they're doing now, which is throwing money at incompetent US contractors.

That's why you need to be talking with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even the United Nations- they're going to be in a better position to do these types of things than we are.

noxagol
09-06-2007, 12:24 PM
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/Chaostan.jpg
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s167/Kregener/chaostan_375.jpg

Chaostan has ALWAYS been in turmoil and it always will be.

Funny how that is like almost the entirety of the old world.

NoxTwilight
09-06-2007, 12:24 PM
Today on the radio I listened to an interview of Antonia Juhasz who has written a book called The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a time. She says that we have not left Iraq because the Iraqis have not signed into law the 3rd Benchmark. Iraq Oil Law which would basically privatize the Iraqi oil and give 70% of it to mostly US oil companies. No money, oil or proceeds have to go to the Iraqis or to the US who will underwrite all the security and infrastructure to make sure all these oil companies are safe. OH and they don't have to use Iraqi employees either. If Iraq continues to refuse to sign, we will stay unless they kick us out. Many Iraqi engineers and oil employees have been protesting this law and so far the government has not signed it.

It's all about the oil as we all know and this just confirms that our government could care less about the fact that they have no water and no electricity, all they want is control of the oil and they'll do anything to get it. And our policy makers who actually know about this refuse to discuss it or acknowledge it. It's disgusting. None of them but Ron and a few others care one bit what we want.

Here is her site. I will be ordering this book soon.

http://www.thebushagenda.net/

SeanEdwards
09-06-2007, 12:28 PM
We should announce our intent to leave. Apologize for the damage we caused. We should also expand (possibly vastly) the amount of refugees from Iraq that we'd be willing to accept into the U.S. I'm sure there are quite a few Iraqis who face certain death for having tried to help the U.S. mission. We owe those people bigtime.

Bryan
09-06-2007, 12:28 PM
Define "our" - to me, a major part of the problem is the group-think collectivism (no offense here, this seems to be more or less the norm) where we all have to do what the "leaders" say. Supporting freedom is what we need to do, this means that each person gets to decide what they think their responsibility to Iraq and others is and act accordingly with their time, money and resources.

Edit- in Dr. Paul's speech at his birthday he specifically addressed that not offering government foreign aid doesn't mean that individuals can't offer aid to foreigners themselves.

constituent
09-06-2007, 12:33 PM
europe really should be included in chaostan.

adpierce
09-06-2007, 12:37 PM
Define "our" - to me, a major part of the problem is the group-think collectivism (no offense here, this seems to be more or less the norm) where we all have to do what the "leaders" say. Supporting freedom is what we need to do, this means that each person gets to decide what they think their responsibility to Iraq and others is and act accordingly with their time, money and resources.

That's a legitimate question. I define "our" as being the nation as a whole. This is not collectivism, as the Constitution gives authority to the Congress and the President to make decisions regarding foreign policy on behalf of the nation. However you bring an interesting proposition to mind which is that there might be some kind of private enterprise solution to meeting an "obligation" if we truly have such an obligation at all. I still contend we didn't necessarily break Iraq, had we done the same thing in another country without the same underlying ethnic problems a civil society might have already formed by now.

Bryan
09-06-2007, 01:02 PM
the Constitution gives authority to the Congress and the President to make decisions regarding foreign policy on behalf of the nation.
Correct, the real issue is how does it all get funded? By force or goodwill? That's the true breakdown I see, not necessarily private vs. public.

As for "we" breaking Iraq, the only thing a lot of people did was succumb to the threat of jail time to pay their taxes which allowed for the funding of the wrongdoings. Take away tax slavery and it changes everything.

klamath
09-06-2007, 01:11 PM
I think when the Iraq congress said no one could tell them whether they can take the summer off or not, they pretty well decided they can run their own country. There is no way we can figure out who to give money to. The neighbors of Iraq would fill their own pockets just as much a US contractors. Iraq was not a thriving perfect country before we went in. When you fly over the country you can see nothing for hundreds of miles but torn land from the war with Iran.