4 ms·

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...
        david927 17y ago
        I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war. You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that. If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere. Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people. They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.

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...
      - david927 17y ago
        I'm amused that you don't think it's already full civil war. You simply cannot definitively say that the US leaving would result in more deaths. The US isn't there as peacekeeper. It's there as invader. Many of these "insurgents" are fighting directly against the US, and many are dying in that battle. We don't know what would happen on a US exit, but to say that there would more violence int he long term is simply disingenuous. You can't know that. If the US was to say, "We'll leave and we need one year to do so," no one would be mad. But they don't. They instead increase troop levels and give every indication that they're not going anywhere. Let's dispense with the blue-eyed "America is there to make Iraq a better place" bullshit. They didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars because they so desperately care about the beautiful Iraqi people. They care that the big oil fields like al Ghawar and Cantarell are making gurgling, slurping noises because they're finished. They care that, unlike other countries, they have virtually no public transportation or other means to handle a spike in oil prices. They care that the last big untapped oil reserves are under the Iraqis' feet. And they're willing to whatever it takes to make sure that they have control of it.