Singapore Expats Forum

Should US pull out of Iraq?

A moderated forum for serious discussions only.

Should US pull out of Iraq?

Yes. Full Withdraw
3
27%
No. Stay until Iraq is stable
5
45%
Too Darn Hard. Its all Bush's Fault
2
18%
Dont Know
1
9%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Should US pull out of Iraq?

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:34 pm

Should US pull out of Iraq?
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Should US pull out of Iraq?

Postby ksl » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 4:03 pm

Kurozu wrote:Should US pull out of Iraq?


No! But I don't believe NS men should be sent! Soldiers know what they are doing when they sign up, and they do, have punative alternatives to purchase contracts back!

But my main concern of Iraq, is that a sign of weakness from government bodies, will be a victory for terror! These terrorists have to be reduced to a minimum force, and it's the duty of all Middle East Countries to be involved, to stabalise. although corruption is rife, I belive it should be left in the hands of the ME when, a significant reduction in terror attacks have receded.

It's up to the internationals to see that the job is done, even though, Countries don't want, to get involved, they have a duty to combat terror, and see that stability is maintained.

Iraq is an ideal training ground for troops, although tours should be cut to a minimum of 3 months and rotated, throughout all countries. The soldiers of the world will get first hand experience of combat, thats what soldiering is all about!

Although it must be left to the volunteers, to go in and learn their trade!

Though the UN are pretty rubbish, and the USA are too trigger happy, counter insurgency tactics are required to stabalise Iraq, this will take many years, and the threat of a coup will always be there!

To pull out would be the biggest mistake in history, the extremists will not relent, even when you have left, they have bigger plans, and that is the distruction of the western values.

User avatar
guruvishwanath
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed, 03 Aug 2005
Location: Braddell
Contact:

Postby guruvishwanath » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 4:50 pm

Actually a better idea would be to have a coalition force NOT formed by any western nation. US, UK, France etc. should stay out of the country. Instead, a coalition force by progressive muslim nations can be a reality and offer a more balanced approach to how things are going on ground. Today there is a value and culture clash contributing to the whole equation. Age old suspicion of western dominance will not go away. Countries like India, Malaysia, Jordan, Turkey would be able to offer an alternative. Notice I am not including Pakistan and Indoneasia. Not because they wont do the job, but because they are already embroiled in controvesies and may not be able to effectively contribute to combat extremism. I have included Malaysia because it is truly a progressive Muslim nation. It has its flaws but overall its a far better deal than Iran, Syria or Libya. (I have not included them as they also would not be objective in this situation). Please note, I am not Malaysian. :-)

The basic objective is stop the country from imploding and destroying itself. Today at the rate of at least 70-100 civilian deaths a day, we are clocking an average of 25000 dead in a year and no one seems to count these numbers. A force of similar (I did not say same) values would certainly start reducing suspicion and because there is no presence of an "infidel" the locals would be able to step up to the plate. Of course, it is not an overnight result. It will take time but certainly a challenge.

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 4:55 pm

My main concern is the terrorist organizations is making use of the opportunity to train their mindless minions fighting against the US.

Some young naive muslims from US and Europe are already joining their muslim brothers to fight against the western power of aggression. With those skills and experience, these brain-washed souls will be able to commit their act of terror in Europe or US soil professionally.

Moreover, the amount of money spent by the US taxpayers are ridiciously high. What a waste of money!

There is no way US or the global community can win. Why not retreat with tails between the legs and fight another day after the sectarian fightings goes away?
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:03 pm

guruvishwanath wrote:Actually a better idea would be to have a coalition force NOT formed by any western nation. US, UK, France etc. should stay out of the country. Instead, a coalition force by progressive muslim nations can be a reality and offer a more balanced approach to how things are going on ground.


A very good point! Indeed, a muslim coalition force had already formed by the UN to oversee the crisis in Lebanon. I wonder what is going on right there now?

But the non-aggressive coalition force has to be big enough to contain the violence on the street. And countries with money and military capability to do that. Looking at the map, there is not many countries who can do that.

Here is an Idea! Why not Iran? ](*,)
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
guruvishwanath
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed, 03 Aug 2005
Location: Braddell
Contact:

Postby guruvishwanath » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:17 pm

Iran is not a good idea. The 1980's war between Iran and Iraq is still fresh in the memory. It sucked a lot of lives, blood and money. During this time, Donald Rumsfeld came to Iraq and met Saddam Hussain and in a photo op said "a great ally to keep Iran in check". I am not kidding. There was a photo of this published a while ago during the whole chaos of Iraq war arguments in the US.

Even today Iran is not going to be a viable option as the whole sectarian violence boils down to Sunnis and Shias. And we are only going to aggravate the situation if Iran was given a tier-1 presence. Rather a tier-2 presence under a close eye of the other coalition partners would give the numbers needed to sustain the daily insurgency. And it would not make the coalition a target just because of the Iranian presence.

Its not a perfect situation but certainly one that can be looked at.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:19 pm

guruvishwanath wrote:Actually a better idea would be to have a coalition force NOT formed by any western nation. US, UK, France etc. should stay out of the country. Instead, a coalition force by progressive muslim nations can be a reality and offer a more balanced approach to how things are going on ground. Today there is a value and culture clash contributing to the whole equation. Age old suspicion of western dominance will not go away. Countries like India, Malaysia, Jordan, Turkey would be able to offer an alternative. Notice I am not including Pakistan and Indoneasia. Not because they wont do the job, but because they are already embroiled in controvesies and may not be able to effectively contribute to combat extremism. I have included Malaysia because it is truly a progressive Muslim nation. It has its flaws but overall its a far better deal than Iran, Syria or Libya. (I have not included them as they also would not be objective in this situation). Please note, I am not Malaysian. :-)

The basic objective is stop the country from imploding and destroying itself. Today at the rate of at least 70-100 civilian deaths a day, we are clocking an average of 25000 dead in a year and no one seems to count these numbers. A force of similar (I did not say same) values would certainly start reducing suspicion and because there is no presence of an "infidel" the locals would be able to step up to the plate. Of course, it is not an overnight result. It will take time but certainly a challenge.


Yes I have got to agree with you, that this is a much better solution, although, from an extremist point of view, this maybe acceptable, although still very difficult, becuase of the private armies, that have been formed over many many years, through the insurgency of Iraq. Which was going on, long before Saddam Hussien was taken out of the equation,
and I believe actually the mujahideen party, was and still is the USA choice, although many are of Iranian decent, from the student uprising days, they are more likely to be excepted by the west, but not by the Sunnies, although I think many Sunnies would believe in their politic, away from extremism, and also against Iran.

Iran would not except this, and would see it as a threat to Iran, However other muslim nations, should sort it between themselves! But I believe you are well aware of the insurgancy of Iraq, long before it fell, from many sides of ME Countries.

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:26 pm

guruvishwanath wrote:Iran is not a good idea. The 1980's war between Iran and Iraq is still fresh in the memory.


I was being sarcastic (see my head banging on the wall) :D
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:34 pm

But why cant the US have a full withdraw? Does it not make any sense?

People are dying already, might as well leave! US cant do anything anyway, and UN are useless. Let them fight among themselves
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
guruvishwanath
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed, 03 Aug 2005
Location: Braddell
Contact:

Postby guruvishwanath » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 5:43 pm

Aaah! I did not wait to see the head-banging icon. My bad! I was hasty in clicking the reply icon. :-)

The other side of the problem is that UN as an body has its image severly battered in the recent years. Too big, too slow and too messy. Its like a classroom of 5 year olds. bickering over really small things when bigger questions remain unaddressed or they just dont want to address them.

I am a huge proponent of a overhaul of UN. And I will start with the security council. It is a damn shame that from 1945, there has not been a significant representation from developing economies like India and Brazil. If there is a case for new members, I would say its India. (I am a bit biased here being an Indian :-) ).

The quintent today are just useless. US is its own agenda to put its finger in every ass it can find. Russia is trying to get back to cold war and wanting to make it more painful to those assess where US has its finger stuck. China is in a unique position of being a staunchly communist capitalist although they will deny it. But its true. A visit to Shanghai, Beijing and other second tier cities will only proove it. UK and Japan have never had anything to think on their own (my apologies to my english and japanese friends but I am referring to politics and not people). I am not even going to comment on the French (once again my apologies to my dear french freinds who I adore a lot) :-)

Mostly all jaded! So new blood from new economies like Brazil, India, Germany, Japan, Australia. Truly the entire globe has to be covered to make it a real UN and not just the original members. And the concept of Elected members is a f***ing joke. With no real powers and anything they do would be vetoed by the 5 makes it a worthless waddle.

Back to Iraq. If there was a proper mandated approach to Iraq problem, then the current strife would have been of a different nature. Another thing I would have really supported was when the Gulf war was in progress in 1991, and if the US had decided to take out Saddam Hussain it would have been justified. I have heard stories from my aunt and uncle in Kuwait during those days and trust me! it is enough to make you want to throw up. :shock:

And no one would have raised a voice in 1991 because it was a coalition with practically every country supporting. Well, to a certain extent the moronic politicians in India did not. For what, I am not sure!

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 6:01 pm

Yes, I agree with you.

Those monkeys are running our UN? Holy Macroni! No wonder they let George Bush invaded Iraq. :D :D :D

Yes the UN should be given more power and should be overhauled. US may be the only superpower in the world for now, but it is unthinkable that UN has actually let US invaded another country without even a scolding by the Secretary General Kofi.

If US can attack Iraq, why cant Iran attack Isreal whom Iran claimed had tainted the Holy Land? (I did not really meant that Iran should attack Isreal, just an example) It is the same thing that George Bush had did. I am fXXking pissed too.
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
./.
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed, 10 May 2006

Postby ./. » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 6:06 pm

I'd just like to add that India was a founding member of the UN and the UN Security Council. India turned down its seat on the Security Council as Nehru wanted India to be the neutral power of the world.

So far so good, except India was then attacked by Pakistan and China and was left cold. China has since historically vetoed India from joining the Council. And to think that when the Council was formed, Nehru insisted that the seat offered to Taiwan should instead be offered to Beijing.

The seat eventually went to Taiwan and Beijing was voted in only in the 70's, and Taiwan kicked out.

India is also the largest contributor of soldiers to UN peace keeping missions.

Shows how far down the basket we've reached if Indian politicians are now jockeying for postion on the same Council they abstained from.

The Group of 4 (G4) (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) candidates for the Council are riddled with holes. China opposes Japan's entry now and strongly supports India. India is a historic ally of Japan. The US under Powell rejected Japan until they change their constitution that expressly prohibits Japan from going to war. Now under Rice the US wants Japan come hell or high water. The US and Big Europe (especially madman Chirac) oppose Germany as they did not support the 2003 Gulf invasion, among other petty politics. (All politics is petty anyway).

Venezuela and Mexico oppose Brazil on the Council...

So the winds change from hour to hour. Humans running other humans. Chaos. Destruction. Welcome to Earth.
Last edited by ./. on Wed, 07 Mar 2007 6:30 pm, edited 8 times in total.
Make Love Not War
Unknown, c. 1966

User avatar
./.
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed, 10 May 2006

Postby ./. » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 6:09 pm

Yes. Full withdraw.

I don't buy the story that the world will descend into a terrorist hell if Iraq were, even at this point of utter destruction, left to Iraqis.
Make Love Not War

Unknown, c. 1966

User avatar
Kurozu
Regular
Regular
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Location: Japan

Postby Kurozu » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:05 pm

Well, China has been a thorn to the Japanese govt eversince the gulf war. Japanese is in the middle of attack by both side.

One side argued that Japan should be more active in International Affairs given that Japan is No.2 in economy and Japan defense military spending is very high.

On the other side, like China and Korea, they want Japan to stay out of World Affairs because they are afraid of the re-arming of a once strong imperalistic military power.
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35122
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:28 pm

guruvishwanath wrote:Notice I am not including Pakistan and Indoneasia. Not because they wont do the job, but because they are already embroiled in controvesies and may not be able to effectively contribute to combat extremism. I have included Malaysia because it is truly a progressive Muslim nation. It has its flaws but overall its a far better deal than Iran, Syria or Libya. (I have not included them as they also would not be objective in this situation). Please note, I am not Malaysian. :-)


Guru,

I know you are not Malaysian. However I would question your statement above as to why you included India but not Pakistan. Is your objection/no-inclusion due to Pakistan's boarder problems with Afganistan or the boarder problems with your own country? If both, then why would you not exclude India as well? Just curious because it smacks of double standards somehow to me.

I do agree on the idea of a western country pullout and an all-muslim/middle east peace-keeping solution. This way the world could whack two birds with one stone. (Which would surely happen if the west pulled out). The only problem I have is with a couple of trigger happy countries that happen to have nukes or will have sooner or later. The collateral damage would be tremendous what with the button pusher thinking they will go to heaven and get their allotment of virgins.

Still think a all non-western force would be the way to go?


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Strictly Speaking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests