5 ms·

Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. That was the causus belli. That was the reason for the invasion, and they don't exist. Someone, anyone, tell me

Weapons of Mass Destruction were never found. That was the causus belli. That was the reason for the invasion, and they don't exist. Someone, anyone, tell me why the U.S. is still there and under what legal basis. Anyone. I dare you. The problem is that you can't. And so now we're talking about kids with glass in their eyes and bullets in their bodies, and soldiers with psychological scars that won't heal. Yet not a single person can give a valid, legal reason for it all. Yet no one will take two minutes to email their representative and say, "Stop it."

ErrantX 17y ago
They are still there because, very simply, it has gone too far now. Pulling out would be carnage - and I suspect, sadly, it has got to the stage where the US will have to see it through to conclusion (probably years away).
- Estragon 17y ago
  Pulling out would be carnage What are you talking about? As this video shows, it's already carnage.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.
    - david927 17y ago
      That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_oil_is_changing_the_world http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control. I appreciate this is the line the US government are selling too; and it is good not to just lap it up hook line and sinker (clearly they are staying for other reasons too). But there is a truth to what they say. Whatever reason the US went (I am sure the oil played a large part) getting out is going to be incredibly difficult. Whatever move they make will be frowned on by someone.
        david927 17y ago
        (Really? The current government is seen as US stooges? Really? Those crazy insurgents. :-) There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense. Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they do it, there will be chaos -- why just look at how much chaos and violence exists now -- just think about if that was set free! They frown now on apartheid but they would frown on that too." No. The US leaving will be "frowned on" by no one. It will be applauded by all. It's been seven years. It needs to end.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        I'm amused that you think that it is a morally right choice to allow a full civil war to break out - would that not result in many more deaths on both sides? Why is that the right choice to make? How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there). The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has to be done right. It's easy to judge when sat miles away...
        17y ago
Maktab 17y ago
Technically, WMDs was only one of a number of casus belli stated officially by the US prior to the war, which included Iraq's non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, its continued hampering of UNMOVIC weapons inspection teams, its repression of its civilian population, its attempted assassination of a former US president, its continued firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone and its harbouring of international terrorists. I don't believe the US and UK should have launched that war in the first place and I personally thought the rationale was a little shaky, but the historical record does show that it wasn't only about WMDs. The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq may be, the legal basis is sound. Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from 2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth. So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US forces leave now based on your reaction to a three year old video, but rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though, and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus at the moment.
- david927 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

They are still there because, very simply, it has gone too far now. Pulling out would be carnage - and I suspect, sadly, it has got to the stage where the US will have to see it through to conclusion (probably years away).

Estragon 17y ago
Pulling out would be carnage What are you talking about? As this video shows, it's already carnage.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  There is carnage in the video, agreed. And, yes, Iraq isn't the most hospitable of places. The problem is that as it stands I don't think the Iraqi army could cope with the insurgents alone - and it seems naive to assume that if the US leaves the insurgency will stop... So perhaps "a lot more carnage" is better.
  - david927 17y ago
    That's what the US government says. The problem is, how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? The US can leave. In fact, for legal reasons, it has to. It was never authorized to invade; staying, under any premise, is unacceptable. If there's "more carnage", that's unfortunate. But the US will never leave. Not because of carnage, but because of the fortune in oil under these poor people's feet: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_oil_is_changing_the_world http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/17/how_iraqi_o...
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > how many of these "insurgents" are fighting against the US because they feel the invasion to be illegal? I'm sorry but right there is the naivety. Yes there is fighting because the US is in control - but the current government is also seen, by the insurgents, as US stooges. They would fight to depose them even if the US left. Then there are many different factions - all of whom would want control. I appreciate this is the line the US government are selling too; and it is good not to just lap it up hook line and sinker (clearly they are staying for other reasons too). But there is a truth to what they say. Whatever reason the US went (I am sure the oil played a large part) getting out is going to be incredibly difficult. Whatever move they make will be frowned on by someone.
      - david927 17y ago
        (Really? The current government is seen as US stooges? Really? Those crazy insurgents. :-) There's no naivety: I understand very well that there are Shiia, Sunni and Bathist factions. And I'm sure that the civil war would continue. But Jesus, the US has been there seven long years at exorbitant expense. Remember, though, that this is the line that apartheid South Africa used to avoid letting the blacks vote: "if they do it, there will be chaos -- why just look at how much chaos and violence exists now -- just think about if that was set free! They frown now on apartheid but they would frown on that too." No. The US leaving will be "frowned on" by no one. It will be applauded by all. It's been seven years. It needs to end.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        I'm amused that you think that it is a morally right choice to allow a full civil war to break out - would that not result in many more deaths on both sides? Why is that the right choice to make? How long before a UN peace keeping force is asked to intervene? (actually, that might be a good result... but lots of unnecessary death to get there). The US shouldn't be there, really. They should leave. But I think it has to be done right. It's easy to judge when sat miles away...
        17y ago

Maktab 17y ago

Technically, WMDs was only one of a number of casus belli stated officially by the US prior to the war, which included Iraq's non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, its continued hampering of UNMOVIC weapons inspection teams, its repression of its civilian population, its attempted assassination of a former US president, its continued firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone and its harbouring of international terrorists. I don't believe the US and UK should have launched that war in the first place and I personally thought the rationale was a little shaky, but the historical record does show that it wasn't only about WMDs. The legal basis for the continued US presence is well-established and widely known, so I'm surprised you feel confident enough to dare anybody to explain it to you. Subsequent to the invasion, the presence of US and other coalition forces in Iraq was legitimised by, in turn, UNSC Resolution 1483 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), IIRC. The last action taken by the UNSC with regards to multinational forces in Iraq was to extend the mandate authorising their presence till December 2008. Thereafter, the continued presence of US forces in Iraq has been legally authorised by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for US forces to leave the country by December 31, 2011. Whatever the moral case for a continued US presence in Iraq may be, the legal basis is sound. Something else that's worth noting is that the Wikileaks video dates from 2007, during the height of combat operations surrounding the surge. At the time those sorts of engagements were a daily occurrence. This is no longer the case; these days the remaining US forces in Iraq are involved in relatively few direct combat operations and the overall level of violence in the country has dropped to a level where a slow US withdrawal is now possible without causing a security vacuum. From a US perspective Iraq is now a solved problem and the war is just about over. I must give credit to General Petraeus and his sane and unorthodox counter-insurgency strategy for that, for what it's worth. So the stuff shown in the Wikileaks footage seldom happens in Iraq anymore. I would suggest that your time is better spent not impotently demanding that US forces leave now based on your reaction to a three year old video, but rather applying pressure on your representatives to ensure the planned withdrawal from Iraq happens on time and that US combat operations in that country end as scheduled on 31 August. I see no reason why it won't though, and in my opinion Afghanistan is a far more pressing concern on which to focus at the moment.

david927 17y ago