US Military Action in Iraq - Poll

[Exi5tentialist]

The interesting thing is that Iraq seems to have a chance to become a reasonably functioning state over the next few years after all foreign troops are gone, whereas Afghanistan likely does not. If that is the case, then the invasion of Iraq, whether justified at the time or not, may have achieved something worthwhile, if only inadvertently. This, of course, assumes that the Iraqis could not have got rid of Saddam via their own version of the Arab Spring. Personally, I suspect not, but no one could be sure either way.

Why?

Why put this desperate spin on what has happened? The US intervention in Iraq was totally destructive to an emerging complex society. There was absolutely nothing positive about it. I know the celebrity-obsessed media love to focus on the assassination of one individual in a nation of millions. That was nothing. The population has been decimated, its economy devastated, its political potential ruined. Why clutch at straws in the face of this reality?

[JimC]

The interesting thing is that Iraq seems to have a chance to become a reasonably functioning state over the next few years after all foreign troops are gone, whereas Afghanistan likely does not. If that is the case, then the invasion of Iraq, whether justified at the time or not, may have achieved something worthwhile, if only inadvertently. This, of course, assumes that the Iraqis could not have got rid of Saddam via their own version of the Arab Spring. Personally, I suspect not, but no one could be sure either way.

Why?

Why put this desperate spin on what has happened? The US intervention in Iraq was totally destructive to an emerging complex society. There was absolutely nothing positive about it. I know the celebrity-obsessed media love to focus on the assassination of one individual in a nation of millions. That was nothing. The population has been decimated, its economy devastated, its political potential ruined. Why clutch at straws in the face of this reality?

Honestly, not desperate.

Not an big fan of the original intervention at all.

However, Saddam Hussein was a monster, very little doubt about that, and Iraqi citizens suffered under his rule. The current political situation has a chance of evolving to a better state than that. I do not claim this would not have happened without the Iraqi war, but it is certainly possible that Iraq could still be locked in a rather unpleasant dictatorship...

[Exi5tentialist]

it is certainly possible that Iraq could still be locked in a rather unpleasant dictatorship...

Behind the sham elections, the US occupation has always been a rather unpleasant dictatorship.

[JimC]

it is certainly possible that Iraq could still be locked in a rather unpleasant dictatorship...

Behind the sham elections, the US occupation has always been a rather unpleasant dictatorship.

It's an unusual dictatorship when the alleged dictators wanted to leave ASAP...

The insurgents of various stripes prolonged the occupation greatly by keeping on blowing other Iraqis up...

[Exi5tentialist]

It's an unusual dictatorship when the alleged dictators wanted to leave ASAP...

Yeah as long as their puppets organised the country the way the US wanted. Your logic is so simplistic.

The insurgents of various stripes prolonged the occupation greatly by keeping on blowing other Iraqis up...

Oh yes, 'insurgents' - the occupier's name for 'baddies'. It makes a nice children's story I suppose.

[Robert_S]

It's an unusual dictatorship when the alleged dictators wanted to leave ASAP...

Yeah as long as their puppets organised the country the way the US wanted. Your logic is so simplistic.

The insurgents of various stripes prolonged the occupation greatly by keeping on blowing other Iraqis up...

Oh yes, 'insurgents' - the occupier's name for 'baddies'. It makes a nice children's story I suppose.

As long as they blow each other up and not the US troops!

Seriously though, if religious and ethnic tensions are that strong that they'd rather kill off eath other than an occupying force, then maybe a Saddam style ruthless dictator is the best thing for the situation.

[Exi5tentialist]

if religious and ethnic tensions are that strong that they'd rather kill off eath other than an occupying force

I recollect that they killed quite a few Americans actually, but then I don't have the memory span of a goldfish.

[JimC]

if religious and ethnic tensions are that strong that they'd rather kill off eath other than an occupying force

I recollect that they killed quite a few Americans actually, but then I don't have the memory span of a goldfish.

Also plenty of each other, via the Sunni/Shiite rivalry...

And so you're convinced that over the last few years the US was not trying desperately to withdraw its troops ASAP?

With all the financial benefits that would entail, and all the political pressure at home?

Give me the real-politik reasons why the US would want to maintain an occupation force a minute longer than the moment an Iraqi government of any stripe looked likely to keep the country running without a descent into chaos...

Robert S wrote:

Seriously though, if religious and ethnic tensions are that strong that they'd rather kill off eath other than an occupying force, then maybe a Saddam style ruthless dictator is the best thing for the situation.

Yes, but at a cost. Ask the Kurds, and the marsh Arabs, and many others...

Shades of the death of Tito, and the break up of Yugoslavia, I suppose...

But now they have a chance to do the mature thing, and fight out their differences on the debating floor of a legislature...

[Exi5tentialist]

if religious and ethnic tensions are that strong that they'd rather kill off eath other than an occupying force

I recollect that they killed quite a few Americans actually, but then I don't have the memory span of a goldfish.

Also plenty of each other, via the Sunni/Shiite rivalry...

That's nothing but divide and rule. It happens in any occupied country. An occupation immediately depletes the economic resources available to the population and they start fighting each other. This has zilch to do with religion - other than as a scapegoating target to cover for US incompetence.

And so you're convinced that over the last few years the US was not trying desperately to withdraw its troops ASAP?

Oh yes I'm sure they'd have loved to leave Iraq to a pro-US Iraqi government. That goal has taken a few years longer than they anticipated. Iraqis were, after all, meant to be welcoming in the US with open arms.

[JimC]

Exi5stentialist wrote:

That's nothing but divide and rule. It happens in any occupied country. An occupation immediately depletes the economic resources available to the population and they start fighting each other. This has zilch to do with religion - other than as a scapegoating target to cover for US incompetence.

Absolute and total nonsense, at least as far as the sunni/shiite conflict goes. They have been at each others throats for centuries, not only in Iraq. Many a rival mosque has been blown up by religious fanatics in places like Pakistan. Shiite pilgrimages have been targeted by sunni bomb-makers over and over again.

You have no idea of the real world of politics, have you... You are suggesting that the US fostered violent religious conflict for some specious goal of divide and rule, when its true interests would be served by things calming down ASAP. Your political blinkers are not letting you see the pragmatic realities; typical of any absolutist point of view...

[Exi5tentialist]

Absolute and total nonsense, at least as far as the sunni/shiite conflict goes. They have been at each others throats for centuries, not only in Iraq. Many a rival mosque has been blown up by religious fanatics in places like Pakistan. Shiite pilgrimages have been targeted by sunni bomb-makers over and over again.

You have no idea of the real world of politics, have you... You are suggesting that the US fostered violent religious conflict for some specious goal of divide and rule, when its true interests would be served by things calming down ASAP. Your political blinkers are not letting you see the pragmatic realities; typical of any absolutist point of view...

Absolute and total nonsense. There was no sunni/shiite sectarianism in Iraq before the US occupation. If there was, you will have no trouble finding evidence of it, will you? But no, you can't. That's because you're talking shi'ite. No, you have to draw your evidence about this pretend conflict between the two groups in Iraq from a totally different country - Pakistan! Such is the standard of evidence you have learned to accept by posting nonsense on these forums for too long.

As for what the US 'fostered' I don't think 'fostering' anything entered the US imagination when the hapless Iraqi population was first subjected to the US jackboot in 2003. Jesus, if you think 'fostering' was any part of their plan, your political blinkers have made you more deluded than ever.

[HomerJay]

Well, there were the Revolts in 1935-36:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Shia ... _1935-1936

Iraq was ruled by Sunnis for over 100 years.

There was never an acceptable endgame for the Sunni insurgents, the Sunni could only remain in power by supressing the majority Shia population.

There were so many foreign Sunni suicide bombers that one Iraqi suicide group advertised itself as only using good ol' 100% Iraqi bred suicide bombers.

[Exi5tentialist]

Well, there were the Revolts in 1935-36:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Shia ... _1935-1936

Iraq was ruled by Sunnis for over 100 years.

There was never an acceptable endgame for the Sunni insurgents, the Sunni could only remain in power by supressing the majority Shia population.

There were so many foreign Sunni suicide bombers that one Iraqi suicide group advertised itself as only using good ol' 100% Iraqi bred suicide bombers.

OK Homer - there was Sunni / Shia conflict in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT COUNTRY (Pakistan!!!) and a TOTALLY DIFFERENT CENTURY (1935 FFS! I suppose that makes WWII a catholic versus protestant war in your religion-obsessed existence!) Now let's get back on topic. Sunni/Shia sectarianism just wasn't a problem in Iraq in the modern period before the 2003 US invasion. The US invasion saw to it that it became a problem, for the reasons I've stated: occupation, limited resources and desperation.

Thank you America. And thank you HomerJay for wasting our time again with your slim evidence. You can go back to sleep now.

[HomerJay]

Well, there were the Revolts in 1935-36:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Shia ... _1935-1936

Iraq was ruled by Sunnis for over 100 years.

There was never an acceptable endgame for the Sunni insurgents, the Sunni could only remain in power by supressing the majority Shia population.

There were so many foreign Sunni suicide bombers that one Iraqi suicide group advertised itself as only using good ol' 100% Iraqi bred suicide bombers.

OK Homer - there was Sunni / Shia conflict in a TOTALLY DIFFERENT COUNTRY (Pakistan!!!)

Even if you don't follow the link, you can still read it says Iraqi.

[Exi5tentialist]

I apologise, I got your illogical, off-topic opinions mixed up with JimC's illogical, off-topic opinions. Oh how easy it is to lump reactionaries into one.

The tedium continues.

You have failed to demonstrate that Sunni/Shia sectarianism was a problem in Iraq in the modern period before the 2003 US invasion. The US invasion saw to it that it became a problem, for the reasons I've stated: occupation, limited resources and desperation. If you can show this analysis to be wrong in any way, I would be interested in your evidence. So far, you've not produced any.