Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

pen

Which countries are you thinking of?

 

Iraq is the obvious. Afghanistan of course we are still there and although american soldiers getting killed is at a low why should we be there. bin laden has been killed, to me that is mission accomplished...pack up and go home. also talking about the various drone strikes that i would have to look up to see the specific targets but my point is why do you think the usa should be in any way involved?

 

As I’ve commented Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of that attitude of American interests first those of the Afghan and Iraqi people second (and often a very low second).

 

I was there in 89,90,91 then again in 2006 I think we should have turned it all to glass in the 80's.

 

Nah, couldn't be. What with the prejudices and all.

 

I was looking through old discussions on Iraq and came upon something I posted back in 2005 when people were calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq -

But a US withdrawal, without proper care, would make the situation a lot more similar [worse].

With factions even from the same religious and ethnic groups vying for power. Remember that when the kurds became semiautonomous in the 90’s they ended up in civil war (with one group asking for help from Saddam’s forces).

In such a situation it will be inevitable that regional powers will become involved just as in the Lebanon and Afghanistan.
**
So what would I do, well I’ll put my money were my mouth is and probably piss everyone off but here are a few musings for discussion.

The first thing would be for Bush to get up and admit his administration fucked up royally, and then sack Cheney and Rummy their aids and advisors.

Then the command of the US troops in Iraq would be handed over from US president’s control over to a UN committee along with running costs and a large reparation payment.

Iraq would be split up into three cantons, Upper, Middle and Lower, each with guarantors that have signed up to a UN resolution of their duties. These would be about establishing security and infrastructure the protection of minorities’ etc, with the future goal being a whole and democratic Iraq. They would also sign a limited defence treaty in which an attack on one canton was an attack on all.

The most controversial thing would be the guarantors, in the Upper region, the mainly Kurdish area, it would be say the EU and US. In the middle two Sunni states, such as the pro American Egypt (or Saudi Arabia) and Libya with its anti-American credentials and in the Lower Shia area the only mainly Shia state, Iran and another ‘neutral’ power.

Overseeing this would be the UN Iraq committee chaired by a UN appointee.

**

Remember these are just some musings written doodling to hopefully get the ball working and see if people have any other ideas.
Posted 11-29-2005
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=131322&page=3

**

Even with withdrawal coming later very little was done to resolve the underlying problem.

What we are getting is that situation many foreshore of regional powers becoming involved. So we have Iranian influence in the Shia south, a Saudi financed jihadist movement leading a Sunni rebellion in the middle and the Kurds in the north looking out for their own interests.

 

I believe that the problem is not the US intervention - not the UNDERLYING problem.

Different religious groups have gone at each other for centuries, millennia even. It's not going to change. Or it's going to change very slowly.

Religious fanatics need to fight each other until one group wins or they come to some sort of agreement by themselves. You can't teach them or steer them in a direction you like. They either will not or cannot understand.

If people cannot coexist peacefully the best thing is to let them kill each other. Overpopulation is a huge problem.

 

Ghost

Here is an interesting alternative view on that i posted earlier in the thread -

The sectarian myth of Iraq : We coexisted peacefully for centuries, and need neither brutal dictators nor western intervention

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

But even it says –

“The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics”
__________________

 

Ghost

The problem of the Shia and Sunni division goes up and down - in the last century it has been exacerbated by the intervention of western great powers (Britain, France, USA).

The drawing of arbitrary lines on maps to create ‘nations’ has had long term effects on places like Syria and Iraq.

The most recent interventions have been driven by US foreign policy – the over throw of the democratically elected government in Iran and supporting the blood regime of the Shah which lead to the Mad Mullahs getting into power. The support for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan that lead to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the support to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war and later the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

all part of the big plan to raise gasoline prices.

 

on the surface balbus' plan would work perfectly...in reality it would only cause the rise in gas prices

 

Please acknowledge...

You know my position on why I think the US has no responsibility.

You know that I am saying that the US has a choice - and why the US has that choice?

The whole 'normal' thing is not important.

 

Glad we understand each other.

 

so does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

 

It's got nothing to do with understanding.

 

Nonsense!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW9OYsMn4ds"]Roger Glover & Guests - Love Is All (1974) - YouTube

 

We just need to advance science to a new fuel source other than oil.

Like there is no reason why Wall St. can't take the dollar and value it against some other commodity instead of oil, other than the reasoning that it's just been a habit, and we've been unwilling to change it.

Perhaps it's time the dollar is measured and valued out on a spread of commodities, rather than just 1 type of commodity.

Diversify the value of a bedrock currency among many different resources and services gold, silver, copper, platinum, titanium, electricity, rare-earth metals, water, oil, new clean air technologies, manufacturing, military protection, and food.


Also as a nation, the USA needs to tell it's citizens that conservation of resources is a good thing and that like Benjamin Franklin's saying "A penny saved is a penny earned", that also applies to resources.

Mass consumerism, is a huge factor of blame for our debt as a nation that individuals have control over. There is no need to create demand for commodities as they will always be needed, and you can control those costs depending on the amount of time you are dividing your supply of said commodity by. (Not unlike how the cost of diamonds are controlled and are artificially price-inflated)

 

There are numerous other energy sources.

The dollar isn't valued based on oil, but I think it is true that oil has traditionally been priced and sold using U.S. dollars based on the dollars perceived soundness. That is beginning to change with China as one example who is reaching agreement with numerous other countries to trade using their own currency.

Actually, this is getting more and more off topic and would be better discussed in a thread of its own.

That's something I would expect to be stated by a conservative.

Supply and demand in a competitive free market with minimal, but necessary regulations in my opinion are one of the needed solutions to most of todays problems.

Back on topic - No, the U.S.A. has no responsibility to help Iraqis. Iraq is a sovereign state, and should be allowed to resolve their own differences.

 

lolwut?

 

All we need is a little bit of love and lots of understanding