Do we have a responsibility to Iraq?

[mzteris]

I was never for the invasion of Iraq. I've been supporting the "GET OUT NOW!" contingent - but - I've been thinking about the havoc we have wreaked upon that Country.

Civil War.

Does our leaving make it better, or worse, for the Iraqi people? What do we owe them in terms of helping them get through, past, over the complete chaos that we created when we attacked them?

I don't know what the answer is. I want our people out. But I don't want to cause them any more problems than we already have.

The only idea I've had is this: UN Peacekeeping forces en masse - and the US foots the bill to rebuild the country.

[Tellurian]

1. We didn't-- until Bush tricked us into an illegal War..nm

[mzteris]

2. But what about now?

Since we broke it, do we need to fix it?

[acmavm]

3. How?

[mzteris]

6. That's what I'm asking here -

ideas for "fixing".

Any comments on the UN Peacekeeping force idea?

[acmavm]

10. No, you asked if we had a responsibility to Iraq. Yes we do.

Can we fix Iraq. Hell no.

Do we owe them something, if not monetary support to fix up the infrastructure? Yes.

But they'll have to 'fix' the mess themselves. They hate us.

[mzteris]

14. you're probably right.

*We* can't "fix" it, can we?

We can try and throw $$ at it - but I fear it will never be enough to undo the damage.

I really think we should impeach/prosecute this administration for what they have done. I think it may be the only way this Country has a snowball's chance in hell of regaining any respect in the World.

[Quantess]

5. Iraq wants USA out. Period.

We have made a big enough mess already. Can we respect Iraq's wishes to kindly leave?

[mzteris]

9. But what happens then?

I think *we* should leave - but I'm not sure leaving them to their own devices is a good idea right now.

And I think we owe them. We need to rebuild their country.

[Quantess]

11. They clearly don't want us to.

And, they don't seem ready to rebuild just yet. There is a civil war, and the region is just too unstable at this time. They've expressed their wishes for USA to leave.

[mzteris]

16. They've always been unstable -

Hussein - as demented as he was - was at least able to control the factions.

The fact that the idiotic neocons never once considered what to do after deposing Hussein is a criminal offense.

[Quantess]

20. True. But, do we have a solution yet?

If anyone's thought up a decent solution to stabilize Iraq peacefully, let me know.

How would Americans like it if some megapower nation invaded us, and then refused to leave when asked to?

[mzteris]

25. I tend to think

that if America was invaded, "we'd" put aside our differences long enough to work collectively to kick their asses out. And then go back to fighting amongst ourselves. :sigh:

As for Iraq - I've just been reading in some other threads about Clark's ideas. Some aren't bad. At least he's thinking.

[whistle]

4. That responsibility should have begun in March 2003, now

....the responsibility is of a complete humanitarian aid and help which I believe all Americans must assume in whatever capacity they can, but the wealthiest war profiteers and criminal neo-cons who benefited financially must be forced to pay the bulk of the cost of helping Iraqis now.

Bush's "stay the course" policy is really all about "avoiding the cost" to clean up the mess he and his chicken hawks created.

[mzteris]

7. I like the idea of

the war profiteers having to foot a lot of the bill.

I think bush's "stay the course" policy is A) the fact that the ijut can never admit when he's wrong; and B) they haven't finished raping the Country for whatever "war profits" they can get, yet.

[whistle]

26. Yes and C) avoid taking responsibility for as long as possible

....hoping it will clean itself up or just go away.

[mzteris]

50. bush has never taken responsibility

for anything! He's a dismal failure at everything he's ever done.

[ananda]

8. I hear you.

It is a dilemma, both morally and psychologically, to go into a place
like a bully in a kindergarten sandbox.. beat everybody up.. trash
the place.. turn the people against themselves.. and then leave as
if it were their fault. Notice the way the Bush admin and the media
have adopted the meme that it's ok to leave as long as the Iraqis
are to take responsibility for it all.

I don't know what to say. I never supported Bush or this war, so I
feel pretty righteous saying: not in my name. Still, I am a citizen of
this country and whatever the USA does represents me in a way.
I am responsible, too.

So.. I would say that staying is going to make things worse. This is
a no win situation.. dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

I think leaving now is the only viable and rational course. I would
hope that it will be done with conscience and a strong sense of
guilt and liability, to the point that this country joins other allies in
helping and supporting Iraq and the ME in their efforts to recover.

Sue

[mzteris]

13. no win situation

Exactly.

And I think you're right that bushco and the rwingnuts are now making it a message of "blame the victim".

I've never really understood war. What motivates people to think like that?

My son and I've been studying ancient history - and watching/reading a lot about wars. The lives that have been needlessly lost in the history of mankind - usually due to some despot's meglomania (and/or "RELIGION") - it's sickening, really.

[AZBlue]

12. I agree with your sentiments & I think we are responsible.

You break it, you fix it. I like the idea you proposed of a UN force. The US certainly is only making matters worse.

Or, let's just all face the fact and allow the country to break into three separate countries. Wouldn't that solve some of the problems?

[mzteris]

19. separate countries?

I dunno. Maybe 3 states/provinces within the Country?

But I'm not sure that would solve the problem - they'd still be fighting each other, wouldn't they?

[FrenchieCat]

27. I find this a troubling solution.

Now we would be asking Iraqis literally to relocate based on which sect population and province they might identify with. I think that would create a larger acrimony between the various factions, if that is possible....which of course, it is....as things can always get worse, even if we don't believe it till it happens.

It is their country....and who are we to start divying it up? Chopping other people's countries into pieces is not wise....that is why they have a constitution, I guess....so that they can make those kind of decisions. For us to be directing traffic to that extent after all of the messing up we have already done would make this suggestion a loser to the Iraqis just on principle, IMO.

[mzteris]

37. I know - how do you decide "who lives where"?

type of thing. If I owned property in the "wrong section" - then what? Of course I'm not sure how "divided" the country is already, anyway. Is it by neighborhood? City? Sector?

At any rate, I wasn't saying *we* should impose that on them, but if *they* wanted it that way - then is that a good thing? I'm not sure I agree. Of course I'm of the opinion that people should be able to coexist peacefully.

[question everything]

15. One correction - not UN Peacekeeping forces

but Arab Peacekeeping forces.

Any foreign national would be seemed as invaders.

What we should have done back in 2003, after the fall of Baghdad, and what may not be too late, was to have a Peacekeeping force composed of soldiers from neighboring countries. They speak the same language, they share religion and culture and can better understand the nuances of life there. For example - Friday is the say of prayer and the day for imams to flame the worshipers.

We need the cooperation of neighboring countries to stop the infiltration of Al Qaeda and of weaponry.

Yes, we do have responsibility for Iraq. We created this monstrosity. Al Qaeda was not there in 2003. We made a mistake for not involving other countries as soon as Baghdad fell, as soon as Saddam was captured; we made a mistake by arrogantly refusing the participation of France and Germany in the "re-building" when this was still an option.

We need to have a special summit that includes neighboring countries and European ones and decide on the best course of action - and accept it!

The only topic has to be Iraq. Not Al Qaeda, not Iran, not Hezbollah and Hamas, not Palestine and not Israel. These issues are not related to Iraq, never were.

[mzteris]

21. I like the idea of the summit -

and limiting the topic to Iraq.

I'm not sure "Al Qaeda" really IS that big of a problem in Iraq. I think bushco uses AQ as a buzzword to keep their base on their side.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Al Qaeda in Iraq is one of many problems we have caused to happen

and to ignore the fact that we created a training ground for them is begging for trouble. I don't have the answer as to what to do about that issue....but sweeping it under the rug as a propaganda Bush ploy is a little too easy of a solution, IMO.

[mzteris]

38. Do we KNOW

that AQ is really there, en masse? I'm sure there are some, but is it really a problem? I don't know - that's why I asked.

[question everything]

43. Yes we do. They were not there, of course, when Bush

decided to invade, but they have been joining the free for all mess since.

Just recently someone - don't remember who - pointed out to the suicide car bombing as the mark of Al Qaeda. (As opposed to just pulling people over, shooting and mutilating them).

Al Zarqwai - whom we killed recently - was reported to belong to at least a branch of Al Qaeda.

[mzteris]

44. Since they're there because of us -

would they leave, if we leave?

[question everything]

49. I doubt it

I don't think that anyone knows what Al Qaeda wants, besides us leaving Saudi Arabia - as a start, this being a holy state for Islam.

They may want to restore the glory of Islam across Europe and the Middle East, the way it was in the first Millennium.

And if their goals are that grandiose, the more training areas they have the better.

And this is the point that others made here: we cannot restore peace and safety to Iraq, even the relative ones under Saddam's regime. We cannot "glue back the vase."

All we can try to do is to appeal to other nations, whom we snubbed when they refused to join us back in 2003, to admit our mistakes and to ask for suggestions and commitments.

Yes, I want our troops home, but I shudder to think that our abrupt retreat would expose more innocent people to torture, rape and murder... the way it is in Darfur. And why isn't anyone doing something there? (Yes, I know, a separate topic).

[mzteris]

51. We cannot "glue back the vase."

No. I think some of the pieces have been irrevocably ground into dust.

*** I shudder to think that our abrupt retreat would expose more innocent people to torture, rape and murder...***

That's what I've been thinking about. Our American soldiers lives are *not* more valuable than the lives of those we'd leave behind.

Darfur -

any myriad of ills in this world that could have been better served by American $$, ingenuity, manpower . . .

We have wasted so much under this ill-begotten regime.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Who are we to ask Arab soldiers to die when we don't want another one

of our soldier to die for this cause?

How does that get rationalized.

We caused it, and yet now that enough of us see it ain't working, we should ask someone else's soldiers to die for it? That is wrong and selfish.

Negotiating to gain their consent to want to die for our Iraq blunder is one thing....but to kind of command it as part of our solution with the sole purpose intended to get our own troops home is quite another.

[question everything]

35. Obviously we should negotiate

however as neighbors they have immediate interest in stabilizing Iraq compared to us, where we can just pack ourselves and leave knowing that the whole mess is some 8000 miles away.

This is why we considered it our business whether there were missiles in Cuba. It was in our neighborhood.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Negotiating is good.......

although we can't consider it a done deal. But certainly persuasion in the terms that you describe might be compelling enough for them to do as we wish. Of course though....many of these Neighbors are not democratic systems and so it might be easy to get that done....however, we should not misunderstand that this solution would still make us responsible for the bloodshed of others and is not a "get home 'free' card".

[OneBlueSky]

17. well, we -- meaning the U.S. -- wrecked it . . .

so we definitely have a responsibility to fix it as best we can . . . I have no idea what that means given the unholy mess that Iraq has become due to our invasion and occupation, but I do think the Pottery Barn rule applies -- you broke it, you bought it . . .

[mzteris]

22. that's the kicker, isn't it?

What to do now? Morally we have an obligation, but what's the best way to go about fixing it?

[lapfog_1]

18. Let me give you an analogy to the "You broke you fix it" meme

OK, so we spotted this nice vase on the shelf, and we thought, gee, we don't like the pattern on this vase, so we got ourselves a large hammer and we smashed it. Now we own it. Now we are thinking gee, it would be nice to put the vase back together again, so we pick up our hammer and we ....

That's the problem. Our military is really really good at breaking things, that's their job.

Why would anyone believe that just because we still have the hammer in our hand, we can use it to put things back together again?

[mzteris]

23. keeping on breaking it to fix it -

yeah - that makes perfect sense. :sarcasm:


I think we've lost all credibility with the people of Iraq. Hell, the world.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I believe that we do have a responsibility to Iraq and the

entire region in the ME, and to the world as well as to the families of the troops that have fallen in Iraq and to Americans who never wanted to see what happened happen.

With humility and sincerity we need to be who Americans "claim" to be, instead of being what America is transparently seeing as being; greedy, arrogant and incompetent dishonest warmongers. We need to negotiate our way out of this and advocate peace notwithstanding that we are the reason that there is no peace currently. That would be responsible sincere humility.

We need to relinquish control of the political and economic stakes that we have in Iraq back to the Iraqis, and we need to give other countries (in particular Iraq and their neighbors) their rightful stake in the future of Iraq by negotiating an end result that will have us step aside in an orderly responsible fashion as opposed to running out and leaving a vaccumm of power to be fought over by those remaining in the mids of it all. However, we should NOT plan on asking other countries to risk the lives of their soldiers in order for us to extricate our own out of this mess (see the McGovern plan which is flawed in proposing this idea)--that is just as arrogantly selfish as we could get, because it only sends the message that we care more about the lives our own troops that we sent in there then we do about the lives of others. If we are not willing to see another of our soldier die in Iraq, then why in God's name would we expect others to be anymore willing to have their own die in our soldier's stead? It is admirable for us to profess love for our troops, but it is another thing for us to have, as a country, made a bad decision, changed our mind when it didn't work, and then have others pay for it with their blood when they had no control about what we did.


Further, we take a gamble with other people's lives in attempting to assure all that the odds that terrible things won't happen to those we leave behind (in particular, those complicit Iraqis who have helped us)are a given.....that's an irresponsible approach as far as I am concerned, and belies the notion that we actually care about the innocent and those who never had a vote in the process but are more involved and have more at stake than we have.

Those who continue to reassure that nothing bad will happen if we leave that isn't already happening now are attempting to paint the best possible rosy outcome in order to get their way. That is exactly what those who advocated going into Iraq in the first place did as well. They were wrong then, and what will we do if we are wrong now? Once we leave, we can't go back; Pandora's box shouldn't have been opened to begin with, but those who think that we can just slam down the lid by being on the next train out of dodge are extremely naive and just as thoughtless, IMO. When something can go wrong, it will....and acting like that is not a likelyhood, and arrogantly NOT being prepared by planning on such a likelyhood is stupid, short sighted and immoral on our part. The fact that there is a real possibility that many (even if our troops don't) will suffer if we don't do this right, and for so many of us to proclaim that our only goal should be to be out yesterday without any consideration for any potential complication is really an immoral stance that continues to scream out that we really are a "me, me, me" country, everyone else be damned.

We owe it to the region not to leave it in a greater turmoil than the way that it was in when we came in. It is not to say that we should not redeploy, because we must.....but it is how we do it that will determine who we really are. Extremists that rationalized going in were very wrong about all of their rosy predictions of "cakewalks", and I believe that the same may be true about the extremists who want us out yesterday (which won't happen anyway, so it is a cry in the wilderness that really isn't a pragmatic solution as much as a political chess move "Bush was wrong, and I told you so!")and are claiming that it will all be OKey-Dokey as long as we remove ourselves from the mess that we ourselves created.

I found this post from someone else to be more or less the dilemna that we face and that we caused by having a fucked up President, a complicit press, a timid congress and not enough people who cared to stop what was clearly an orchestrated attempt in the United States snatching power where it had no business snatching power.

There is a lot of discussion about our options in Iraq that includes word and ideas like withdrawal, redeployment, victory, stability, democracy. Unfortunately all of these words have aquired a political tone that ignores a basic truth about the United States' situation in Iraq, and the situation we have put the Iraqis in: We (the United States) did it. It was our (the United States) decision to invade their country. The resaons may have been valid, invalid, honest, dishonest, straight forward, misleading, or perhaps unknown, but they were OUR (the United States)reasons, and the invasion was OUR (the United States)action.
Now we (the United States) have a moral obligation to "make it right," whatever that means, whatever that takes.
We may not have liked Sadam (though we must remember that he was once, "our man in the area"). But if we are going to unilaterally remove a country's leader from power, we take on the responsibility of providing that country's people with a better alternative, a better life.
Iraq is a mess. The reasons for us being there may or may not be reasonable. But we voluntarily took on the responsibility. It's not a light burden, but it is ours.

Posted by: Sam Harnish | Nov 21, 2006 4:27:31 PM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

[mzteris]

31. **who Americans "claim" to be**

Agreed.

This is the kind of dialogue - yours and the one you quoted - that we need right now.

I don't like the idea of more people dying. Any people dying. And that was a problem I was having with the UN Peacekeeping force idea - BUT - I guess I was thinking that - if it wasn't US there - and if there were enough forces dedicated to KEEPING THE PEACE - and rebuilding - that maybe the wanton killing would stop. (Or am I just being naive?)

[paulk]

102. great post

we're the one's who whacked the hornet's nest... we're the one's who are going to get stung

[kentuck]

29. We should not assume that part of that "responsibility" is to stay in Iraq?

Perhaps the right thing to do is to leave? That might be the responsible thing to do?

[FrenchieCat]

30. The question is not "should we leave".......but how.

What measures do we undertake to make our leaving a "responsible" endeavor, not for ourselves, but for the region that we leave burning in our path out?

[mzteris]

34. Yes.

Throw up our hands and say "oops" sorry - and just walk away? I don't think that's the answer, either.

[mzteris]

33. Is it? That's what I'm asking -

I don't know. I really don't know what is the "right" thing to do.

[kentuck]

39. Right.

What is the right thing to do? To stay or to leave? I think most people assume that "stay the course" is the "responsible" thing to do. I am not sure either...

[mzteris]

42. Definitely not "stay the course"

whatever the hell that really means! -

but to pull out unilaterally without regard to the consequences??? I'm not all that comfortable with *that* either.

While I don't want any more Americans to die - I don't think leaving the Iraqis to die because of our massive screw-up is the moral thing to do, either.

[kentuck]

45. How do we know this?

"I don't think leaving the Iraqis to die because of our massive screw-up is the moral thing to do, either."

How do we know they will die in larger numbers than if we stay? Isn't that an assumption also?

[mzteris]

48. Aren't they fighting amongst themselves?

They aren't just attacking Americans - they're attacking each other. That's why it's being referred to as a Civil War.

The factions are vying for power/control of Iraq. Not that we're helping particularly - but -

I dunno - I have no answers - just questions.

[FrenchieCat]

54. That's the soundbyte choices that you are providing.....

to we stay?
OR
do we leave?

How do we leave, I think, is more the question.....because the "DO WE LEAVE?" question is answered with an uncategorical YES from where I sit.

So for me, its much more how will it be done? should we leave tomorrow? Should it be without or with negotiations? Should we not concern ourselves anymore about the situation there once we have removed ourselves? Have we projected how the whole thing will play out from the various countless scenarios possible? and if so, what are the contigencies

So the more important questions is How do we leave? What should be our intent? What are the advantages and the pitfalls in the longview? Should we be more concerned of saving troops as the overaching goal at the risk of leaving the region destabilized, or must we take both into consideration to act responsibly? How do we weigh the pros and cons of what method we use in getting out? etc....

I know one thing....soundbytes 2 part choices must be kept out of the conversation if we are to get any real understanding as to what our role needs to be, as opposed to questioning whether we have a real role in this that we caused.

[kentuck]

55. And your choice is the "responsible " one?

And you are sure of that?

[FrenchieCat]

59. It is not my choice....it is the inevitability of the situation.....

so we will get out.

Again, it really is a question of how and when.....of course, we know why.

[Cosmocat]

56. RIGHT ...

They hate us now, pretty much universally outside of the Kurdish regions ...

We do little good, we have NO control ...

Maybe our troops being there is holding back some of the civil war a bit, but all we are doing is muting it, putting it off ...

Sad to say, we opened a BIG can of worms, and these people are now going to have to work it out for themselves ... Whether we have our troops there or not, it is going to come down to whatever strongman has the most/meanest group of henchmen to take control ... It either happens now if we leave, or in 10 years if we wait to leave that long ...

[Nimrod2005]

36. Yes, but not one American should die for it.....

[mzteris]

40. too bad we can't make those

who wanted the damn war to have to go fight it themselves.

[grizmaster]

46. we have no responsibility that killing more Iraqis will solve

[mzteris]

47. but is leaving them

to kill each other unimpeded the responsible thing to do, then?

[Heewack]

83. I agree.

Leaving is not the responsible thing to do. We know full well that it will turn into a very bloody civil war that will leave tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead.

We have the situation in Darfur where the talk is of intervention into a bloody civil war. We all know the right thing to do is to get in there. I don't see how we can expect not to be faced with the same problems in Iraq should we leave immediately. That's not even addressing the high possibility that you could be looking at a spread of this civil war across the majority of the ME. When you look at the whole ME as possibly being enflamed in a brutal conflict the problems we face in Iraq now seem rather small. Everyone is tired of the Iraq war and wants our troops home, but we have to make sure that we don't create an even bigger mess than just Iraq.

[mzteris]

94. Lesser of two evils -

it's difficult to *know* what is the right thing to do. I admit I am very torn over this whole subject.

[lillilbigone]

52. We have a responsibility to leave Iraq as soon as possible

and pay war reperations.

[mzteris]

53. I agree with the paying part

and selfishly I'd like to see us OUT of there, but is it truly the best thing to do. Just leave. "Sorry for the mess folks. Here's some $$, fix it yourself. Bye."

??


Welcome to DU, btw!

:hi:

[Auntie Bush]

57. All the people and corporation's that earned any money from this

war should pay every penny back before the public pays a dime. Those responsible for starting it or encouraging it (Judith Miller) should pay 100 fold. Bush et al should have every penny drained from there trust funds too. Make paupers out of all of them. That can be a fine or penalty for their war crimes.

It's criminal that those who got rich off this war are responsible for starting it...think military industrial complex.

[mzteris]

58. I'm thinking Carlyle Group,

and Halliburton and KBR for starters....

[loyalsister]

60. I believe we do

How we deal with it, I am not sure.
But, from my amatuer standpoint, I think we must engage the world community especially Iraq's neighbors to begin with.
Keep our minds open and commit to a diplomatic process with a goal of stability for Iraq.
I think it would go faster if we were to get over the fact that the end result may be one where the leaders who got us into it do not come out looking so good at home, and the U.S. loses some credibility in general.
I think we owe them that admission with no more excuses about how convincing the evidence was.
All predictors that their country would be worse off were there and we did it anyway.

[mzteris]

70. You make some good points.

Of course, getting GW & his ilk to admit to making a mistake would be the first hurdle, wouldn't it? Along with the rest of those people who think Amurkha can do no wrong.

I think it's imperative we get rid of the people who got us into this mess in order to regain some say at all with the world.

[loyalsister]

84. My thoughts are pretty lofty......

in the context of the Amurkhan narcissism that comes with any administration.
Resistance to an asmission that we were wrong in the first place and then botched being wrong at a level that had monstrous negative effects across the world is not a position I would expect any administration to have the humility to take.

I do, however think that that is what happened, and that telling the truth after inflicting an injustice would be the right thing to do.
We knew it was a bad idea and that these exact circumstances were likely, did it anyway.
I am looking at this from a perspective of nation citizenship in a global community. We have been bad global citizens, the complicitness runs much deeper than the Bush administration.
It is in the fact that take sides in Middle Eastern conflicts here in the U.S.
It is in the fact that we talk about leaving Iraq, but not making things better in Iraq.

I think we need creative solutions.

[mzteris]

95. **bad global citizens**

Yes, we have.

Another poster in another thread yesterday was stating that we ALL are complicit. That *we* - the citizens that KNEW this was the wrong thing to do - should have all marched on Washington. Should have stopped them - some way, some how. That we wrung our hands and gnashed our teeth, but in the end let them blithely start this ill-begotten war in OUR NAME.

America, the beautiful?

I fear the world sees us as a very ugly place now.

[Zhade]

61. Yes. But not a military one.

We cannot be the ones to bring stability, when it's our very presence fueling the violence - it's like asking if a burglar who breaks in and kills some of your family while raping the others should be the one to help comfort the family and clean up the mess.

[mzteris]

71. That's one way of looking at it

and it makes a lot of sense.

I was thinking earlier along those lines. Putting myself into the "they broke into my house and destroyed everything mindset" - would I want them to stick around and help clean up the mess? No, not really. But I would expect them to pay for damages.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

62. No

I've had similar thoughts about our responsibility to Iraq but, aside from some continued financial support and humanitarian aid, I now believe that we have done pretty much all we can do there and that we are simply "treading water" at this point. The "mission" (as if there ever was one) has long since been "accomplished" and we need to start pulling our forces out NOW and let the Iraqis be free to take charge of their own destiny (which was supposed to the whole point of our invasion, right? Right?). I don't believe that, at this point, we can afford, militarily or economically, to sustain our occupation of Iraq. It is too bad that Bush et. al decided to cut most of the world out of the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq in retaliation for not supporting his mad rush to war. The current disintegration of Iraq is a perfect example of why broad international support and collaboration essential for global situations that necessitate military involvement. Bush's so-called "coalition of the willing" amounted to little more than a listing of countries who, for various reasons, "declared" their support for the invasion of Iraq even though many of them supplied little or no financial, military, or other support for the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Some of those countries threw their support for the war even though most of their people opposed the war outright or opposed it unless it was sanctioned by the UN. Iraq will always be regarded as a failed neocon experiment in American imperialism that, if I have it my way, will be quietly consigned to the "dustbin of history."

[mzteris]

72. So you don't think we owe them ANYTHING?

We destroy their country and say, oops - sorry - we had a deranged leader and you're on your own?

While I agree "we can't afford" to stay there - I think we OWE them *something*. What exactly that *something* IS - well - that was the point of my post.

You're spot on about the "coalition" - *we* all saw that right away. It was a joke. A bad one.

Welcome to DU, btw!

:hi:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

101. Agreed-Some Assistance Owed

Thanks for the welcome. I did actually indicate in my OP that we should continue to offer them some financial and technical assistance and I would go so far as to suggest that we should probably offer SOME continued (albeit limited) military assistance but I believe that we should begin withdrawing MOST of our troops ASAP. Regardless of whether you believe the myriad and ever-shifting justifications of the Bush administration (and I don't), I think that we can all reasonably agree that we've "accomplished" everything that the Bush administration (appears to have) set out to accomplish (Ensuring no WMDs, removal of Saddam and his regime, "democratic" elections for the Iraqis). There is really no good reason to keep most of our troops tied down in what has become a "shooting gallery" between the various factions and I don't believe that without some kind of massive "re-invasion" (that can't happen for purely logistical reasons) we can never hope to successfully clamp down on the violence that is currently engulfing the country. Help the Iraqis? Yes. Support the current Iraqi government? Yes. Keep most of our troops in the country indefinitely? NO! The invasion and subsequent bungling of the occupation and the incompetence of our leadership all the way around has created a no-win situation for our troops and our country and we just need to salvage what we can, swallow our pride, and leave. I have begun thinking of this situation like having a splinter. You may hurt for a little right after you pull it out but it will hurt a lot less than if it were left in. After it's out, of course, the healing can begin.

[mzteris]

103. Thanks for the clarifications.

It's definitely a no-win situation for everyone at this point.

[mike_c]

63. yes-- we have a responsibility to withdraw immediately....

The war against Iraq is a crime. I don't mean that metaphorically-- it is an ongoing crime against humanity, a war crime. The first responsibility any criminal has to his victim is to stop committing the crime. Restitution can come afterward, as can punishment, but the crime must cease as quickly as possible-- that is the first obligation to every victim, whether an individual or a nation. The U.S. presence in Iraq is a crime against peace. The first step toward justice is to withdraw as quickly as possible.

[mzteris]

73. It is a crime.

And I like the point you make about "the crime must cease as quickly as possible".

Are we doing nothing to "hold up the infrastructure" of Iraq? I don't know - that's why I'm asking. I have not been closely following what's going on there - I admit - I was too sick of it all and really just had to stay away from it for a while. Now that there is some glimmer of hope (post-election) - I figure I should try and catch up on what's going on.

With the 08 election coming, I think it's really important that whoever we nominate/elect has a workable PLAN. Not only for OUR Country, but for Iraq, as well.

[GOPFighter]

64. Do we have a responsibility to Iraq?

You're damn right we do, and we have a responsibility to the world to apologize to them for ignoring their warnings and letting our leaders lie to us and bully us into invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us and screw that country up so bad that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, all because of our hubris and incompetence.

Thank you for starting this thread because this has been hanging heavy on my mind.

This is the second time in my lifetime that we have arrogantly waged a stupid-ass war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (not to mention the deaths of our own troop). It makes us feel good to lash out and beat-up a small nation to satisfy the blood-lust of an insecure portion of Americans who have a psychotic need to have enemies (Commies, Muslims) they can focus their bitter anger on and send our troops to whoop-ass so we can prove our superiority.

Twice in my lifetime! Well, by God this time we need to take action and make amends. We've got to try Bush and his band of liars for war crimes. Jail them, they deserve no less. We've got to institute the draft and train enough American troops (including the children of our corporate CEOs and politicians!) and send enough of them to Iraq to secure the the country so the innocent citizens can live their day-to-day lives in peace. We as Americans have got to take responsibility for this debacle and do whatever it takes to rebuild the infrastructure that we allowed to be destroyed. We don't have the right to interfere in their politics, let them create the country they want. All we should do is provide enough security for them to build their new government peacefully.

Is there a chance in hell this will happen? No. Is it even doable? I don't know, probably not. But this is what an honorable, compassionate, responsible people would do. We Americans strut around patting ourselves on the back about what a great people we are, and how everyone wants to come to America and be like us. We say we're the most generous, compassionate, religious nation on earth and we are so damn proud of ourselves. Sorry folks, we have become the arrogant, bullying enemy everyone else hates and that makes me so damn sad because I was once damn proud to be an American!

[mike_c]

65. the "innocent citizens" ARE the insurgency-- don't you see...

...that we cannot "secure Iraq" without killing millions of innocent civilians. We are fighting the people of Iraq, who simply want the U.S. out of their country. Our presence is a war crime.

[GOPFighter]

67. The insurgency is millions of innocent civilians??

No, I don't see that. Those who are doing the killing are doing it because they can. With enough troops, we could secure the country. What I don't know is how many troops it would take or if we could raise that many troops and train them in time. It's probably too late for that, so the point may be moot.

I will not back down on my insistence that it is immoral to walk away from the fuckin' mess we made without holding those responsible for the war accountable (the Administration and the American people). If we must leave Iraq, we must apologize to the people of Iraq and the people of the world for what we've done and we must make it harder (via legislation) for the war-loving idiots who make up about a third our population to do this again, and again, and again. If not, someday we're going to invade a country who can kick our ass right here in America.

[mike_c]

68. I agree with everything you said-- I simply think we must do it....

We must withdraw from Iraq because our presence there is a war crime, and our first responsibility is to stop committing the crime. But that doesn't mean walk away scot free-- the perpetrators MUST be held responsible. There must be war crimes tribunals for American leaders, there must be foreign policy reform and military reform, and the U.S. must make restitution to the people of Iraq. However, we must not continue to occupy their country. They want us out. The folks killing American soldiers are not international terrorists for the most part-- they are Iraqis who have taken up arms against the occupation.

[mzteris]

75. All I can say to your post is

Amen.

You've stated it very well.

It's a sad state of affairs, indeed. Our Country should be ashamed. Those of us with a clue, are, I suspect. It's those who can't - or won't - admit to anything less than perfection, anything less than "we are the greatest" - who believe that stay the course is viable option.

I agree wholeheartedly about the war crimes. IMHO, it's the ONLY way to regain any sense of respectability in the world.

[enough already]

66. No fucking way

Our only responsibility is to get the fuck out of there now.

[Bucky]

69. If more die because we've left, it's God's will, right?

It's not speculation. If we leave, the killing will increase--our troops, for all the crimes they've perpetrated, are also keeping a lid on worse violence still. Pull them out without a plan and you will increase the rate at which Iraqis kill one another. That's not a pleasant prospect and I'd sure like to ignore the moral responsibility we have to that country once we turned it into a living hell. But I can't. We've killed tens of thousands--probably over a hundred thousand--by going in without thinking. I can't agree that we should kill tens of thousands more by leaving without thinking it all thru again.

[mzteris]

77. This is my fear.

And why I started this thread.

Do we save lives by staying or leaving? (And not just "our" lives!)

[mzteris]

76. EH?

So the Iraqis are just SOL?

Are they "less important" than we are?

[enough already]

79. You and Bush can tell the American parents of our military their kids have to stay

We have no business there. Get out now.

[mzteris]

81. So you are saying that "our" kids lives

are more important than "their" kids lives.

[enough already]

85. Yes. In no uncertain terms. n/t

[mzteris]

89. are you sure you're on the right message board?

That's a pretty pitiful way to think.

Why the HELL do you think that Americans are more *important* than other people?

[Uncle Joe]

74. Yes, I believe we do have a moral responsibility

Imagine a superpower coming in to the United States because they did not like our President/King/Dictator and left us in the middle of a civil war with our selves.

I don't have all the answers, but from a moral standpoint, I believe we owe the people of Iraq.

[mzteris]

78. You're where I am,

Uncle Joe.

I don't have answers either, just questions I guess. But I wholeheartedly agree with you - we owe the people of Iraq. If we are ever to have any "moral authority" again, we must do what we can to fix the problem. I just don't know if it will ever be possible to truly "fix" it.

[sandnsea]

80. Our presence is making it worse

As long as we are occupying, they use that to recruit more fighters. Disengaging militarily won't immediately stop the violence, but it will force them to make choices about whether they want to kill each other or eventually make the compromises necessary for peace.

[IndianaGreen]

82. Yes! We must pay reparations to Iraq and we must prosecute war criminals

responsible for this war, including Bush and Cheney. Better yet, we must extradite Bush and Cheney to Iraq to face trial for their crimes.

Our troops must leave Iraq at once!

[mzteris]

90. Reparations and Prosecution - Amen! n/t

[leesa]

86. Only if Iraq wants the UN there. We have no right to impose anything.

We MUST get out though. Our presence is detrimental. We are the occupiers. We will owe reparations for a long time.

[mzteris]

91. **Our presence is detrimental**

- so we're doing more harm than good at this point?

Probably.

[Mass]

87. Yes, but the issue is to know what is the most effective way to

do that:

- One way to see that is to say that we need to leave because we are making things worse they would be otherwise,
- Another way to see that is to say that we need to stay because without us, it would be worse, so we should stay and change the policy.

My feeling is that the first way is the only way. The only questions here are in the details: do we try to fix things as we leave, do we less a few forces to help the Iraqis train their troops, how long will it take to leave and what should be do in the meantime. The other thing is to have this international meeting to make clear we are leaving and that it is the world's interest to make sure that Iraq is not exploding (and let other countries take part in the decisions and not decide for them).

[mzteris]

92. I think international consensus is a must.

We should serve at their pleasure - not our own at this point. We've lost whatever authority we had in the world.

[dmoded]

88. my two cents..

What do we owe iraq? A speedy pullout and then a very nice sum of money so they can begin rebuilding the infrastructure.

and an apology but i'll keep on dreaming.

-dm

[mzteris]

93. and punishing those who are

responsible.

As long as we're dreaming, eh?

[zulchzulu]

96. We need 3 major steps

1. Impeach and remove Bush and Cheney immediately from office. Set up a World Council meeting apologizing for the disastrous war we started.

2. Create a Marshall Plan type program with as much international cooperation to reconstruct Iraq financially but with the Iraqis firmly at the helm in doing the work.

3. Create a new World Peace Council that gets to the heart of why so much of the violence is happening in the Middle East and figure out quantifiable solutions to stop the violence.

[mzteris]

98. I'm good with the 1st two

but I'm not sure about #3.

A - we have the UN - which should be playing the role of "World Peace Council.

B - well - the heart of the violence in the ME - religion, xenophobia, wealth & power.

[BrewAz]

97. Yes we have a responsibility...

To assist the Iraqi people. Unfortunately we first have to clean up the political mess we caused by the Bush war of choice...

Here is the analogy I use: a parent must make good when their adolescent child messes up and breaks a window at the neighbors house. The parent can certainly discipline the child...make them work for the money to "fix it"...all after the parent with child in tow goes to the neighbor on bended knee and apologizes....maybe even has the child clean up the neighbors yard as restitution.

With Iraq...we need to take our "adolescent-boy president" by the ear...have him apologize, and maybe lend him to the Iraqis (along with the PNAC and his whole administration)to manage the clean up. We then will need to foot the bill to get the infrastructure we destroyed back to where it should be...with Iraqi contractors not Halliburton.

The government works for us...we the people are responsible.

BrewAz

[mzteris]

99. I don't know about having them

"manage the cleanup" - I think they're too incompetent too manage anything. Not to mention, they're not to be trusted!

Definitely punished and made to foot the bill - but "in charge" of anything? Other than pushing a broom - nope.

[leftofthedial]

100. We have a responsibility to leave.

We have a responsibility to bring to justice those who were responsible for this crime against humanity.

And we have a responsibility to help (with aid) when (and if) the chaos makes rebuilding possible.

[mzteris]

104. Most definitely bring those responsible

to be held accountable for their crimes.