Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

Odon

Not really – your stance so far seems based on the idea that you’ve decided on a stop in history, a line where everything on one side, you’ve decided, has to be forgotten and is in your view irrelevant.

As I’ve said this makes no sense, history and people’s memories and experience don’t work that way.

The overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 some 60 years ago still has a relevance to many Iranians today and the way they see the west.

History colours people’s views and ideas just see how many times it comes up in arguments, oh yes sometimes it may be mythologized, or exaggerated or distorted but it has power.

Your argument seemed to be that any mistakes made in US foreign policy have to be forgotten because they could have no consequences for later developments and so the US can take no responsibility for those actions.

As I’ve commented that doesn’t make sense.

 

Odon


Was that Cheney video you put up a reflection of your viewpoint?

 

The Cheney video.

The rise of Islamic extremism

As I’ve said the rise on Sunni and Shia extremism and terrorism was helped by US foreign policy in Iran and Afghanistan, and then later its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The hatred many of these extremist have of America also goes back to US foreign policy, the overthrow of the democratic government in Iran and its subsequent support for the bloody handed Shah, the support given to Israel and Israeli treatment of Palestinians, the support given to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war, and the ‘crusade’ against terror and the invasion of Iraq.

Of course also the elephant in the room here is the financing by Saudis of extremist Shia ideas through the promotion of wahhabism and wahhabi madrassas.

Troops out of Iraq

The multiple fuck ups of the Iraqi occupation (for which Cheney bears some responsibility) made the call for withdrawal almost inevitable, as things went from bad to worse. As I’ve said I witnessed the change here on these forums, as the voices went from ‘gun hoe’ all out support to calls to leave totally and at once. The financial situation at the time was also pressing.

The final surge seemed like just a way to try and stabilise the situation long enough for the US to leave with some semblance of ‘honour’, I’ve heard it been called a sticking plaster on a number of occasions, and it did nothing about the underlying problem of sectarian animosity and corruption.

*
Try watching - The power of nightmares by Adam Curtis

*
The whole tone of this piece was extremely one sided is this really what Americans think of as ‘Fair and Balanced’?

 

Plague

I wouldn’t call the government headed by Maliki an American puppet if anything its allegiance leans more toward Iran. And its Shai prejudices has in a lot of ways lead to the Sunni uprising.

 

Balbus

I responded to post 244. You ignored my response.

Asking - in a nutshell - does the US have a 'responsibility' to Iraq for ever, and if not at what point does that 'responsibility' end - especially when the Iraqi government/Prime minister has said it doesn't need help from the US (albeit back-tracking on that now.)
It isn't like the US has totally removed it's presence from Iraq.

If you think I am drawing an arbitrary line in the sands of time, well I'm not the only person to be doing that (take a track back to the quotes I have posted) - although that person has changed his position.

The entire anti-war movement. The majority of Iraqi's. The list goes on.

I did not say that the US should NOT help if asked, I said they didn't have to if they didn't want to.
And the US has done as much as it wants to do, it seems.

Having a never ending responsibility to do anything the Iraqi PM (etc) asks for or 'public opinion' seems to think it should be doing there, makes no sense to me.

You say: 'people’s memories and experience don’t work that way' 'has a relevance to many ' well, to some it does not.
People such as yourself might operate on 'never forgetting' 'always using as a stick to whack with' etc etc ... you will always have people like that.
They tend not to be productive with moving forward, and one of the reasons wars/conflicts/resentment continue.
To a degree, it isn't forgotten, but the opinion can also be:
'Leave our country'
'We can solve our own problems'
'We don't want your troops here any more'
If you are completely ignoring that part of 'history' then you are not living in reality.

Also, you have to wonder why the Iraqi government / PM isn't doing all it can to unify it's/his country, and not need help.

Should the US spoon feed it's internal policies for ever?

Kerry urges unity to expel Isis rebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27991414

Well, you are kind of removing any grey and making it black and white.
Ok, fair enough. That is what I am saying - albeit if they don't want to.
I don't have any issue if they do.
I doubt that is the reason they would help, but you can read into their motivations to help any way you like.

Not really. I just put it out there that's all.

 

Balbus

'Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?'

Are you saying the only answer is 'yes'?

 

What's ironic is that you can't have "unity" when the conflict is fueled by a non-compromising issue that tends to almost always be religiously fueled anger.

You cannot unify, religious anger, because religious anger is unsatiable, and those caught in such a mindset ask for blank-check retribution > eye for and eye = world blind.


The ONLY way conflicts like this get solved, is if the war is so horrific, that each side involved becomes war wary and realizes what their doing is foolish and sad.

---

In this case, Iran and the US, are both mediators here for Iraqi, but the goals of each of those mediators might be conflicting interests.

Iran COULD be stoking the fire, and the US might be trying quell it, or the complete opposite. Or in a rare case, US and Iran might have the same goal as mediators, but I doubt it and it worries me that moderates might be getting conflicting advice on what to do, increasing miscommunication and the failure of either moderating country's interference.

 

Odon

I didn’t ignore it - I asked you to explain your reply, which didn’t seem to make any sense – in that you seemed to be ignoring the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its consequences along with any other consequences of mistakes in US foreign policy.

If you wish me to go through your reply in post 248 (that is what you are talking about isn’t it?) and explain why it makes little sense I’d be happy to do so.

Again you seem to want to draw a line in the sand - to repeat if people feel no responsibility, no blame, for their past mistakes they never learn from those mistakes.

The responsibility I’m talking about is to the Iraqi people not the Maliki government.

This is about responsibility, you view seems to be that there is a drawn line that allows all responsibility to be forgotten.

LOL I’m ashamed of you what a cheap and inaccurate shot.

History can enlighten and give warnings.

As has been documented many of the mistakes made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq were down to many people pushing it not taking note of history, they thought it could be forgotten and dismissed, they were driven my an ideological view of the ‘future’, and so kept making mistakes that had repercussions that still reverberate today.

I prefer to have my eyes open I mean if you move forward with your eyes closed you might find yourself falling off a cliff

So your argument it that any mistakes made in US foreign policy can or should be forgotten since they do not have any consequences for later developments and so the US can dismiss any responsibility for any past actions if it wants to do so.

But isn’t that a recipe to make the same or similar mistakes, I mean if you never learn from them?

Again isn’t that just walking forward with eyes closed next to a cliff edge?

 

Monkjr

Here is something I posted back in 2005

People will kill for a cause and that cause does not have to be religious. Ideologies be they religious or political are potent, belief if it becomes total can be dangerous.

For example corruption’s of communist ideas have caused countless death and destruction as has though that were opposed to the spread of any left wing thought. So you have such things as the left wing Red Army Faction (also known as the Baader Meinhof gang) in Germany or the right wing terrorist conspiracy known as ‘Operation Condor’ (which amongst other things murdered Orlando Letelier with a car-bombed in the centre of Washington DC).

**

As to the recent quietness of ‘Christian’ terrorism the fact is that Christianity is itself going through a rather dormant phase.

In certain history books you will find a chapter on the European Wars of Religion, in which for over a hundred years, religious tensions between Catholics and Protestants caused tension, conflict and war. Even afterwards religious persecution and segregation was common (eg in England you had to be a Church of England to go to university right up until 1826)

One of the reactions to this was a growing secularism for example the period was in the minds of American founding fathers when they made provision for freedom of worship and the separation of church and state.

Rational and scientific thought came to challenge the power of the church and from the French Revolution onward wars in Europe and mainly been fought for ideological or nationalists reasons rather than religion. (Even the collapse of Yugoslavia although it had a religious element was mainly about nationalism).

The Christian element in European society has declined to be the force it once was, for instance I have read that there are more practising vegetarians in Britain than there are practising Anglicans.

But things could change.

It should be remembered that that process was also at work in the middle east, where a number of left leaning, progressive and even secular groups had grown up. For example in Iran there was the government of Mohammed Mossadegh (overthrown by the a anglo-american plot), elsewhere their was the vague socialistic ideas of Nasserism and even Ba’athism -before it became corrupted - was a socialist and secular movement.

Many argue that it was the purge of left wing elements under the Shah - fully encouraged and assisted by the US - that allowed the mad mullahs to so easily get control in Iran after the popular revolution because secularists who mainly left wingers were diminished and weak.

**

Many religions are galvanised by feeling under attack and thrive on misery.

If people loose confidence in secular power such as during recessions or under hard undemocratic regimes or those they feel are corrupt or ineffectual, then they are likely to turn to the spiritual for help.

If people feel ‘their people’ or values are under attacked they can become radicalised by that perception.

The invasion of Afghanistan by ‘atheistic’ Soviet forces radicalised many Arab Muslims as did the spread of Saudi sponsored wahabist schools in that region.

An idea has grown up amongst some Muslims that western values (both secular and Christian) are trying to turn Muslims away from ‘true’ Islam that just as the atheistic secular communists physically attacked Islam so to are others trying to attack it with corrupting ideas.

The one thing that could have convinced many that didn’t accept this view was a physical attack on Muslims by the country that most typifies that corruption, the US. Not only does it claim to be Christian with a Born again Christian President that says his Christian god told him to invade Iraq, it also stands up for secular rights and lifestyles like gay rights and pornographers being protected by the constitution that enrages conservative Muslims.

**

It seems at first strange that the US has this duality, a country with ‘liberal’ freedoms life-styles protected by a secular constitution, but one of the few places in the world where fundamentalist Christianity is a growing power.

But is it so strange? The US was a puritan and conservative country the founding fathers with that eye on the wars of religion separated church and state, but the country remained Protestant, generally church going and conservative up to the sixties. But things changed and many of the more puritan and conservative elements feel that ‘American values’ are under attack by the more ‘liberal’ secular ideas. Some have become so radicalised by this process that they are willing to do such things as bomb abortion clinics or try to impose creationist ideas on schools.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=1980430&postcount=6

 

Monkjr

Hell man you are jolly old soul.

In the west it was the spread of secularism, the enlightenment, and deism or unbelief.

It should be remembered that the pilgrims that went to America did so to practice religious intolerance they wanted a pure society and dissenters were persecuted. It was the mainly deist founding fathers that tried to bring in freedom of belief.

Anyway there was a movement toward secularism in the Middle East but in many places it became the victim of a US ‘anti-communist’ foreign policy. American government seemed to ignore religious fundamentalists (with its sectarian and divisional ideas) while trying to suppress left wingers (with their secular and inclusive views).

 

Balbus

I have to say, it is a very complicated issue...

Responsibility for and responsibility to are two separate issues - or maybe not.
What do you think?

Maybe you know when the US first got itself entangled with Iraq militarily or when US entanglement provoked a negative consequence, such as the murder or death of Iraqi civilians (or it's military).
Anything you feel means the US has a 'responsibility' to the Iraqi general public.
You have to consider, for instance, the positives and negatives of any 'help' the US might provide.
Would it have unforeseen consequences?
Would bombing ISIS, for instance, be a positive or negative - what would be the consequences?

What 'help' do you think the US 'help' should entail?

Think about it, then articulate what the positives and negatives might be.
What would they be?

Does 'help' mean that the US can just do what ever it feels will help Iraq (and its people)?
Or does it require the majority of Iraqi's 'approval' of that 'help'.
Obviously the Iraqi government have no relevance in this, in your opinion.
What do you think?

Maybe it would help to say that my position is it is between the US and Iraqi governments first.
That is where my rationale starts and ends.

The Iraqi government drew a line.

I am drawing a line.

Everything I said should make more sense.

 

the last 10 pages of this thread is mostly you two arguing about ignoring each other

 

We can all speak earnestly bout helping victims of violence in places like Rwanda, Haiti or Tibet. or To find the missing Nigerian Girls.

Too bad for victims of violence in strategic locations like Syria or Iraq where intentions to halt violence are subsumed beneath issues of great power politics or resource extraction.

 

Not true. Intentionally or unintentionally not being on the same page. I'm trying to be on the same page.

 

Citation needed.

It's about oil? snooze.

 

Uh...do we know what is helpful

 

I do. Others, not so much, it seems. So far!

 

Odon

I think I’ve understood your position (if I’m wrong please tell me) basically you take a legal position, legal responsibility, but as I’ve explained I think that is the wrong way of looking at it, because legally you can draw a line, a cutoff point. But as I’ve said it seems to me just a way of shrugging off any blame and so not having to learn from mistakes.

Take the bad and even abusive parents mentioned above with the child that gets into trouble - as you pointed out once the kid reaches legal maturity the parents can legally claim that anything their child then does has nothing to do with them. That is legally correct but to me does not mean they the parents are still not responsible for the bad and abusive behavior they inflicted on their child and a contributing factor to its bad behavior.

*

Uh...do we know what is helpful

Can you please tell us then, because I don’t believe you have so far?

*

How to help

As I’ve explained to me this is about taking responsibility and the first thing that needs to be done is to accept responsibility for the mistakes that have been made Only then can people honestly look for the reasons as to why the mistakes were made.

As I’ve indicated often the problem is that the US is pursuing what its leaders see as American short term self interests which are often ideologically driven. This is possible in part because responsibility for mistakes is not accepted.

 

the leaders you speak of dont believe they made a mistake...or...thats their story and they are sticking to it. so now that, that is done as much as its going to be, what is next on the plan to a healthy happier iraq?

 

No.