Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
so you're proposing the establishment of an American colony in Iraq? because that's what it would take-- permanent policing, a permanent American force to oversee the country for ever & ever. another Puerto Rico? it just wouldn't work.
|
No, not a colony, and no permanent force. American troops should stay as long as the goverment of Iraq wishes and it's necessary. If the iraqi goverment says get out, they should leave as soon as possible. And that's exactly how it is. At the moment, the iraqi government wants american troops to stay, as american presence in iraq benefits iraqi stability while a withdrawl would lead to the collapse of iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
you know last time we discussed this in a thread i heard out your arguments against the withdrawal, and they are good ones... but the error was already committed, namely, invading iraq. perpetuating the error will not make it better. it will make it worse, as it is happening.
|
The error was already committed not with the invasion, but with the half-hearted invasion of 1991 which didn't topple the baathist government out of fear of instability. Or the error was baathist take-over in 1968. It's not like everything was working in the right direction prior to march 2003. Quit the contrary: Baathism would not have gone away by isolating Iraq for another decade or two, it would only have prolonged the desolate sitution created by Saddam's regime, which destroyed iraqi society.
The error of 1991 was that US politics in the region were aimed at keeping the status quo, i.e. "stability", no matter what that ment to the people living under this "stability - despotism. America's position at that time could be summed up as: As long as the oil flows, let those arabs live under dictators and despots, we don't care for their freedom.
That view had to be changed after 9/11 because in the post-911 world, the status quo works against the west. The despotic regimes of the middle east as well as non-state actors of those countries use anti-western, anti-jewish and islamist propaganda to focus the aggressive potential of their youth against America and her allies, which creates the current rise of terrorism.. The regimes to that to prevent arab youth to fight the facist goverments of their home countries. Non-state actors do it out of islamist supremacy ideology. They hate the kuffar west, they hate democracy and freedom, gay bars and religious tolerance, gender equality and ham sandwhiches, mixed school classes and everything else that is against their 632 A.D. version of Islam.
But in my opinion, religion plays only a minor role in this conflict. It's merely an excuse for killing. The source of the hatred lies not in the religion, but in the political, demographic and economic sitution in the countries of the middle east. The hatred against the west is a result of the desolate situation of their failed state home countries, which offer no positions in society to their angry youth. Islamic supremacy offers what they're looking for: An ideology which "explains" their suffering, by putting the blame on the jews and the west, which in this ideology have conspired against the world of islam and are keeping it down. Their ambition turns into violence, terrorism, and genocide, as happened before in other parts of the world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
now i think your concern with islamism taking over may arise from the situation in your own country. if that is the case, U.S. troops staying in Iraq protecting a lost cause won't save Europe. this is something that will have to be worked out inside Europe's borders, and I don't have an answer for that.
|
Actually, I agree: an U.S. victory in Iraq, a successful, stable iraqi democracy won't do much to help the situation in Europe.
But it's the only hope for Iraq's population. And it's not a lost cause. That's pure defatism.