iraq

[lessthan]

now with the handing over of the government and country to the iraqi citizens steadily approaching. Will they be ready? every day you hear abotu 8 more soldiers and 20 iraqi policemen being killed. i person ally dont think that it should be handed over right now its way too soon. we have yet to make it a stable place for people to live. and with the handing it over to the new governemnt could mean even worse things for that country i.e a revolution or a civil war or some kind of government changing situation which would hurt the new just founded government and semi-reestablished control over the people. anyone agree?

[joshjosh]

i think that the US, UK and other imperialist troops should leave iraq straight away. the government they hand over on June 10th (or whenever it's supposed to be) if it happens at all will be a puppet government.

i don't think that a revolution, or something challenging the new govt would be a bad thing, it should be welcomed. the iraqis clearly do not want American troops on their soil, and so they should leave.

the iraqis have also proved that they can work together and are not 'savages' or whatever some of the right wing media arguments are, because they are clearly working together in order to kick out foreign troops!

The majority of Iraqis do want US troops in their country. Unfortunately, the minority who do not are louder than the majority and attract much more media attention. It is not at all clear that the three major factions in Iraq would cohabitate peacefully if coalition forces were to leave tommorrow. I rather think a civil war would ensue.
I don't think it's too soon to turn things over to an Iraqi government. I do think it's way to soon to leave the country. While you could call the new Iraqi government a puppet state, I think fledgling would be a more accurate description. The US, and allies, remained in Japan and Germany for many years after WWII, yet I wouldn't call their governments puppet states.

[joshjosh]

where is the evidence to say that the resistance doesn't have the majority support of the iraqis (even if they aren't taking part, it doesn't mean theey don't support it)? i might seema bit hypocritical here, cos i don't have any evidence to hand, but the rising death toll, and the increasing amount of space that the rebels hold says something.

if the US etc stayed in iraq and at the same time handed over power to a government, wouldn't that government just be a puppet government? it wouldn't be representative of iraqis, it would be the coalition troops carrying out it's policies, and in terms of the balance of forces, the US could easily just veto any decision that a government made, because what would stop them?

when the US stayed in Japan and Germany after WW3 it wasn't because the government were nice and wanting to help the people out it was to stop the spread of communism, which is why they pumped so much economic aid in.

JJ look at the polls. Iraqi citizens by an overwhelming majority support the US efforts. The rebels, are not expanding their sphere of influence, they are just getting more aggressive in the Sunni triangle. FYI, they are also getting their asses kicked, and are not gaining ground or support.
Okay, about the puppet state of Iraq. Why don't you look at the US's effort in Iraq as similar to the US's effort post WWII. Instead of communism, insert terrorism. Iraqi, Iranian, and Saudi. Since the US has left Saudi Arabia, their terrorists have achieved their goal and are quieting down. The majority of imported terrorist in Iraq are from Iran. It is not in the current government of Iran's best interrest to have a stable Iraq, with any form of government much less one democratically based. The Iranian government in on the verge of collapse from internal pressure from the Majority of Iranian citizens.

[joshjosh]

show me some polls.

i think your opinion on the puppet state is totally reactionary. why would iraq be a 'terrorist state' as you imply? is there any basis to this claim?

the 'terrorism' that iraqis are carrying out now is part of a national liberation struggle, they are targetting coallition troops (thankfully there seems to have been an end to attacks on civilians which isn't an effective or legitimate tactic IMO) with the aims of kicking them out, and i 100% support that.

here's an article on a recent bombing in riyadh so where's the evidence that the terrorists there are 'quieting down'

also where's the evidence to say that there's 'imported terrorists'? the letter sent by diplomats in this article says that: 'To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful'

Okay JJ. The polls I've mentioned are readily available at any polling institute's website. Try Zogby or Gallup or do a google search, there are plenty for you to choose from.

And now that you've made your perspective quite clear. "...they are targetting coallition troops...with the aims of kicking them out, and i 100% support that."
I see no point in continuing to argue with you since your mind is already made up and I doubt any new facts will change it.

[Gorgo]

It's immaterial if the Iraqi people want to be invaded and murdered. It was an illegal attack. The U.S. is installing a puppet government. They need to admit their crimes and get out. Now. Nothing is served by continuing the crime.

Gorgo, actually, according to the letter of the law, specifically the 1992 cease fire, Coalition forces were authorized to use force against Saddam's regime. Saddam violated his agreements spelled out in the 1991 cease fire agreement hence coalition forces could legally resume hostilities.

[lessthan]

hmm i dont think saddam learned his lesson in desert storm. i think it was im sorry but eh im only in 11th grade. anyways they still would be installing a puppet governemtn because they do not want this to happen again. when one terrorist group goes down a nother one with much more sophistication pops up in a new place. liek the phillipines somewhere where the governemnt doesnt really think anything is going on OR the governemtn is involved in the terrorism (secret police). you wait iraq will not be able to pay us back within this century their is too much shit goin on over there that they dont even have that much to export besides oil and more then likely drugs. enough said l0l

Lessthan. Are you really in the 11th grade? If so keep up the good work and keep an open mind. I wish this type of forum existed when I was in highschool. I had a group of friends who liked to get together and debate like this. The problem was that emotions always flared and we ended up yelling at each other for a while, usually arguing in circles. I would have like to debate with more people and in a more rational manner. Take advantage of this opportunity, but as I said before KEEP AN OPEN MIND, and think for yourself.

[Helter]

Originally posted by joshjosh, the iraqis clearly do not want American troops on their soil, and so they should leave. the iraqis have also proved that they can work together and are not 'savages' or whatever some of the right wing media arguments are, because they are clearly working together in order to kick out foreign troops!

Not really... It only takes a small group of dedicated individuals to produce the body count that we are seeing in a region like Iraq, a group of 100 men could probably do it, and even if they had 1,000 that still wouldn't amount to "the iraqis ... working together in order to kick out foreign troops"

“specifically the 1992 cease fire, Coalition forces were authorized to use force against Saddam's regime”

One illegality cannot make another illegality legal, particularly against the Constitution. The Constitution delegates only Congress the power to declare war against a country, not against an idea (terrorism). The Constitution may be amended by three fourths of the State Legislatures (Article V), not by a cease fire agreement, Coalition forces, or any other entity.
Allan

[Gorgo]

I'm not sure which post you're responding to, but according to the letter of the law, the Security Council remained in control of the situation. It was not up to a country to take it upon themselves to decide to attack another.

Even with that, the Security Council would not have taken that upon themselves without a better reason at that time.

Originally posted by dave654, Gorgo, actually, according to the letter of the law, specifically the 1992 cease fire, Coalition forces were authorized to use force against Saddam's regime. Saddam violated his agreements spelled out in the 1991 cease fire agreement hence coalition forces could legally resume hostilities.

[Gorgo]

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-03.htm

The U.N. Security Council, in its unanimous adoption of resolution 1441, declares in Article 14 that it "decides to remain seized of the matter." This is diplomatic language for asserting that the Security Council alone has the authority to determine what, if any, action to take regarding current or future Iraqi violations of their resolutions.

Good point Gorgo. If you'll recall, all the members of the Security Council did agree to go to war with Iraq except France, Germany and Russia. It is quite clear that these countries had multi-bilion dollar/Euro contracts with Saddams regime and stood to lose big if the war were prosecuted. With these contracts in mind do you think these countries were opposed to the war for moral or legal reasons? I don't think so. They should have recused themselves because of the conflict of interest.
The remaining countries agreed that Saddam was trying to build a Nuclear bomb, did have ties to terrorist organizations, did posses WMDs, and would eventually, they did not way when, would pose an imminent threat to the rest of the world.
I'm sorry to be such hawk on this issue, but I firmly believe attacking Iraq was the right thing to do despite all the criticism and jumping up and down yelling where's the WMDs. They were there, and they were not the only reason for invading.

[Gorgo]

No. There was absolutely no reason at all to think Iraq was a threat to anyone. None. Nada. If they did, they would have let the inspectors do their work, as they had done quite successfully for years. The U.S. chose instead to place spies among them. Then when threatened again, Iraq chose to allow the inspectors in, although the matter of the spies had not been dealt with.

The U.S. has dealt with Iraq in a criminal manner since its beginning.

Are you suggesting the US caused Saddam to kick out the weapons inspectors in 1998?
As for Saddam not considered a threat. Well he invaded Kuwait. He had WMDs and showed a willingness to use them. He had a nuclear weapons program. And he had ties to terrorist groups. Even when stippulating US culpability in the Iran/Iraq war, and the accusation that by not saying NO, Saddam felt he had a green light to invade Kuwait, there is definitely a case that he did or would pose a threat to countries outside the middle-east.

[jcgadfly]

Originally posted by dave654, Are you suggesting the US caused Saddam to kick out the weapons inspectors in 1998?

Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors. The US pulled them after Saddam discovered they were liberally salted with CIA operatives doing intelligence gathering inviolation of the Security Council's resolution.

Isn't that a kick? America went to war with Iraq because America broke the rules.

As for Saddam not considered a threat.  Well he invaded Kuwait.  He had WMDs and showed a willingness to use them.  He had a nuclear weapons program.  And he had ties to terrorist groups.

He invaded Kuwait with using American weapons and with America's blessing. Remeber April Glaspie?

He had the beginnings of a nuclear program but was years away from any weapons. Why should Israel be the only UN rulebreaker with nukes in the region?

Saudi Arabia has proven ties with terrorist organizations, unlike Sadam's alleged ones. If Dubya goes after the Saudis, his Poppy is out of a job. So the oil men swore eternal friendship with each other (at least until Halliburton wants to control more oil).

Even when stippulating US culpability in the Iran/Iraq war, and the accusation that by not saying NO, Saddam felt he had a green light to invade Kuwait, there is definitely a case that he did or would pose a threat to countries outside the middle-east.

That's why Saddam did absolutely nothing to other countries in the region. He was a threat.

Pull the other one.

[bishop]

are we there to ensure iraqi democracy or to find wmd?

Gorgo, actually, according to the letter of the law, specifically the 1992 cease fire, Coalition forces were authorized to use force against Saddam's regime. Saddam violated his agreements spelled out in the 1991 cease fire agreement hence coalition forces could legally resume hostilities.

but we were operating under 1441 which did not explicitly authorize the invasion. yes, they found some banned weapons like the al-samud (sp?).. did that justify a pre-emptive invasion? the majority of the security council didn't think so. in fact, it was a sign that the inspections were working - slowly removing the threat without resorting to war.

what has our invasion accomplished as far as finding wmd is concerned?