Why do the US and UK refuse to leave Iraq?

[Rosco]

It is the destiny of the nations of the west to bring the other lesser nations under our control.

 

[Billnew]

Not reading any post but the first.

America and other nations involved in the Iraq war,
know they can not leave Iraq until it can stand on its own. Otherwise, the multiple factions will all fight for power killing thousands of innocents.(yes more then are
being killed now.)
To leave would allow Iraq to be conquered by Iran. And a terrorist state to evolve. There is no option to leave Iraq. Look at everything the Democratic party has offered. Fluff legislation and non binding resolutions.
They know just as much as Bush that we can't leave.
They just want it to seem like they are doing something.
Democrats have never been a party of fixing things.
Just the party to offer band aid soluitons, so they can run year after year on the policy of needing to fix something. Hey, if they fix it they can't run on a problem. And they would have to find some new problem.

So say what you want about oil and money being the cause of our troops being in Iraq. But the leaders know why we are still there.

 

[momalle1]

So say what you want about oil and money being the cause of our troops being in Iraq. But the leaders know why we are still there.

Yes, because a Republican white house buried us into a situation we can't get out of, like driving a Corvette through Georgia mud pits. But it's the Democrats that don't fix things.

 

[Treppers]

Nah, I personally like Obi more than Anakin.

Anakin pwns. Anyway, I'm not quite sure why I characterised 'my side' as the Dark Side, seeing as we are the ones who give a damn about human rights, the rule of law, and people power.

That doesn't really give evidence that our purpose in being in Iraq is to have leverage over oil distribution.

Sleeker, I do not have access to classified Bush Administration documents. I will start up another thread on this topic. All anyone can do in this situation is look at past policies, the current and evolving situation in Iraq, and come to a conclusion. If your best reason, grounded in historical knowledge and current events, tells you that the US went into Iraq and stays there in violation of Iraqis' wishes, because it wants to help Iraqis (we can safely dismiss WMD and terrorism, or do we have to go through this as well?), then I respect that. In my opinion such a view is untenable. I'll start another thread on it, see below.

So should we let them go and have a civil war? Should we not try to help them?

No one has any true idea of what will happen if we leave, or to the extent and severity that the various scenarios usually suggested will play out. My reason for saying this is simple: Anyone who claims to have a fair idea of the extent and severity of whichever scenario will play if we pulled out now please provide us with a reasonably tight estimate of the number of additional dead that will result. And stabs in the dark won't do, I want a number resulting as the end point of a detailed analysis.

As I said, if we are serious about Iraqi democracy, we will do what virtually every Iraqi wants, and get out. Maybe us withdrawing will unite enough Sunni and Shia to kick start some sort of dialogue, maybe not. I can't say with any certainty what will happen, and I don't think anyone does. This completely ignores the fact that the primary consideration must be: WHAT DO IRAQIS WANT?

We have to fix their country at least somewhat before we let them go on their own.

We can help them reconstruct their country by granting substantial reparations and funding the reconstruction. They don't want our combat troops there to do that.

I didn't say toddlers. I said children. Iraq doesn't know how to manage a democracy, just like a child doesn't know how to manage adult life.

My apologies. You're right, using the more general term 'children' transforms your description of Iraqis into one of total respect. Look at the subtle change in word: 'Iraq doesn't know how to manage.' Who is this person Iraq to whom you refer? There are people called Iraqis on the other hand... Do you really mean it Sleeker? You think Iraqis are a bunch of inept morons? You think them so 'childlike' (like a child, 'children') in their simplicity that they couldn't possibly know how something called democracy works? Well, if that's your view of ordinary Iraqis, it should be your view of ordinary Americans too. Else we are talking about something even more sinister. Again, I don't think you even really believe what you are saying, but are forced to say such things because your preconceptions about your country and its role in the world necessitate it. I know it's often hard, especially Americans, to remember the distinction between the government of a country and its general public. To hate your government, however, is not to hate your country, to hate your political party leaders is not to hate your fellow citizens.

I didn't know it was illegal. Anyways, more than America thought Iraq had WMD's. (Link, and I know it's obviously not from an unbiased source, but they document every quote well.)

If you are going to quote from some website which I've never heard of called rightwingnews.com, then I will start quoting from wsws.org. I have as much respect for the Democratic Party as I do for the GOP. As much respect, in fact, as I do for New Labout, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats here in sunny England. They are all in this together - hook, line and sinker. Whether in government making the horrendous decisions, or failing to properly challenge the government in opposition, in my view the moral difference is vanishingly small.

We're not "dominating" in the sense that you have it. It's not like we're holding them as slaves. We're not forcing them to do anything unreasonable, just follow the law. We don't have "the right to carry on killing them." Collateral damage happens, sure, but it's not something we try to do.

I wasn't talking about sex. Not dominating them? What do you call invading their country illegally on pretexts which were known, and shown to be, a tissue of lies, then refusing to leave their country when they want us to? If we stay, we will kill Iraqis. You say we have the right to stay, then you say by extension that we have the right to kill more Iraqi civilians. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Show me how this war supports your theory that we're just staying to use oil as leverage. Don't show me how the war can't be because of other reasons, show me why it's for this reason.

Firstly, I want to state again quite clearly, as I did with the opening line of the OP, that these are not my theories. I can take no credit for what is typed on that topic save for taking the time to read books, articles, reports etc. I cannot take credit for other peoples' hard work, research and hard-won insights.

With that out of the way, I can only refer you above where I say I will start another thread on the topic of oil as the strategic resource and associated US/UK policies.

Perfect example of putting words into my mouth.

OK I'm sorry, but you don't seem to respect them a whole lot ('children').

No, I want you to show evidence that shows that America went to Iraq and is staying there for leverage in the sale of oil (and not evidence showing why it's not for other reasons).

Again, I don't have access to classified Bush Administration documents. There is no 'smoking gun', but given past policies and how the Iraq War is being played out, an extremely strong case can be made out. As I said, I've no intention of ducking this, I'll start another thread.

And that still doesn't show me anything about how America is using Iraq as leverage in the sale of oil.

Save as above.

Proving a past event was for oil doesn't prove this is for oil.

Same as above.

America supports a free trade, capitalist society. We're not going to go to war over it with Venezuela though.

The US (government) already played a part in supporting a coup attempt against him once. Sadly for Washington, the people of Venezuela had other views about the overthrowing of their democratically elected government.

But with those executive powers, he could theoretically give himself extensions.

This is sheer conjecture. As I said before, the people of Venezuela have proven more than capable of keeping a check on US power, it is their responsibility to ensure that he doesn't overstep the mark - not yours or mine, it isn't our country.


--------

Is the President supposed to do what he thinks is right, or is he supposed to poll the nation on every topic before deciding what to do? If it's the latter, then why do we even bother with a president?

I'll deal with this in another post, it's 2:30am here and I've been drinking. Tired.

We're not gods. We can't help everywhere at once. We do not have the power to help every African, Middle Eastern, Balkan, and Southeast Asian country at the same time. We're having a hard enough time with just two.

Like I said, we can't help all countries at the same time.

I'll deal with these two in another post.

 

[Sleeker]

Sleeker, I do not have access to classified Bush Administration documents. I will start up another thread on this topic. All anyone can do in this situation is look at past policies, the current and evolving situation in Iraq, and come to a conclusion. If your best reason, grounded in historical knowledge and current events, tells you that the US went into Iraq and stays there in violation of Iraqis' wishes, because it wants to help Iraqis (we can safely dismiss WMD and terrorism, or do we have to go through this as well?), then I respect that. In my opinion such a view is untenable. I'll start another thread on it, see below.

Administrations change. The policy of past administrations don't really reflect the policy of other administrations.

As I said, if we are serious about Iraqi democracy, we will do what virtually every Iraqi wants, and get out. Maybe us withdrawing will unite enough Sunni and Shia to kick start some sort of dialogue, maybe not. I can't say with any certainty what will happen, and I don't think anyone does. This completely ignores the fact that the primary consideration must be: WHAT DO IRAQIS WANT?

If we leave now, the weak, democratic Iraqi government will fall, leaving them without a democracy.

My apologies. You're right, using the more general term 'children' transforms your description of Iraqis into one of total respect. Look at the subtle change in word: 'Iraq doesn't know how to manage.' Who is this person Iraq to whom you refer? There are people called Iraqis on the other hand... Do you really mean it Sleeker? You think Iraqis are a bunch of inept morons? You think them so 'childlike' (like a child, 'children') in their simplicity that they couldn't possibly know how something called democracy works? Well, if that's your view of ordinary Iraqis, it should be your view of ordinary Americans too. Else we are talking about something even more sinister.

Again, stop putting words into my mouth. I didn't call Iraqis inept, morons, or simpletons. I didn't compare their intelligence to the intelligence of a child. Put Stephen Hawking under a car hood and he would be clueless as to how to fix the engine. Does that make him dumb because he doesn't know how to fix it? No, but automechanics will have to help him. Iraq doesn't know how to manage a democracy. Does that make them dumb because they don't know how to run a democracy? No, but that means democracies will have to help them out.

Not dominating them?

No, we do not have total control over the Iraqis.

What do you call invading their country illegally on pretexts which were known, and shown to be, a tissue of lies,

All lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. Lying implies knowingly telling a falsehood. Since you claim they were lies, please show that the pretexts were known to be wrong by those who spoke them.

Also, illegal to whom? And why?

If we stay, we will kill Iraqis.

If we leave, Iraqis will kill even more Iraqis. Most deaths in Iraq are not caused by coalition forces, but by the insurgents themselves.

You say we have the right to stay, then you say by extension that we have the right to kill more Iraqi civilians. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Non sequitur. Just because something happens does not make it a right to cause that something to happen.

Firstly, I want to state again quite clearly, as I did with the opening line of the OP, that these are not my theories. I can take no credit for what is typed on that topic save for taking the time to read books, articles, reports etc. I cannot take credit for other peoples' hard work, research and hard-won insights.

With that out of the way, I can only refer you above where I say I will start another thread on the topic of oil as the strategic resource and associated US/UK policies.

Well, you're implying that you agree with the points in the original post, so I'd still like to see evidence that we're using Iraqi oil as leverage against other countries.

OK I'm sorry, but you don't seem to respect them a whole lot ('children').

And you seem to like putting words into my mouth.

Again, I don't have access to classified Bush Administration documents. There is no 'smoking gun', but given past policies and how the Iraq War is being played out, an extremely strong case can be made out. As I said, I've no intention of ducking this, I'll start another thread.

What past policies of Bush and his administration support this? In what way that the Iraq War is being played out does it support this?

This is sheer conjecture. As I said before, the people of Venezuela have proven more than capable of keeping a check on US power, it is their responsibility to ensure that he doesn't overstep the mark - not yours or mine, it isn't our country.

It's conjecture if I say he's going to do it. I'm perfectly right in saying that it's theoretically possible within the bounds of the laws given.