Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Gives Us the Right to Stay in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Gives Us the Right to Stay in Iraq?

    Is it our high sense of entitlement as self righteous Americans that gives us the right to invade any country we want, stay for as long as we want, with little to no regard for international law and the free will of the people we're invading?

    Iraq doesn't want us there. The Iraqis don't want us there. The war is over, yet we persist. At what point will we be judged based on our actions and not our words? We claim to be freedom fighters, yet what part about Iraq is free? Replacing one tyrannical ruler with another in Washington is not freedom. The people of Iraq have not been freed. We know this to be true because there is not an American here who would want the "government" we forced upon them.

    It is commonplace in U.S. politics to hear of the "end" of the Iraq War under former President Obama, but it is an odd end to a war which leaves thousands of occupying troops in place. The Trump administration began this year with more than 5,000 boots on the ground in Iraq, and, since then, added to their number after reshuffling U.S. forces in Syria. It has been nearly three years since Baghdad declared victory over the Islamic State—whose rise occasioned a growing U.S. footprint in Iraq beginning in 2014. In those years, Washington has ignored repeated Iraqi calls for withdrawal of all foreign militaries, as well as recent insistence from Baghdad that American forces relocated from Syria cannot stay.

    The demonstrations this fall are further evidence of Iraqi dissatisfaction with prolonged meddling by Washington. "You know, 16 years, there is nothing good," an Iraqi widow named Hala Chalabi, who is part of the protests, told NPR. Her family had high hopes following the ouster of Saddam Hussein but has been bitterly disappointed with the U.S.-backed government that replaced him. "Nothing happened very good for the people. Everything is bad. Killing, stealing—it's about all the government. All of them are bad and the same thing."
    https://reason.com/2019/12/10/iraqi-...-intervention/
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

  • #2


    Any other obvious questions?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
      Is it our high sense of entitlement as self righteous Americans that gives us the right to invade any country we want, stay for as long as we want, with little to no regard for international law and the free will of the people we're invading?

      Iraq doesn't want us there. The Iraqis don't want us there. The war is over, yet we persist. At what point will we be judged based on our actions and not our words? We claim to be freedom fighters, yet what part about Iraq is free? Replacing one tyrannical ruler with another in Washington is not freedom. The people of Iraq have not been freed. We know this to be true because there is not an American here who would want the "government" we forced upon them.



      https://reason.com/2019/12/10/iraqi-...-intervention/
      Wrong questions.Again .
      1 It was not the aim of the US to free the Iraqis .
      2 Trump is not Saddam Hussein .
      3 It is not a question of right to stay in Iraq .Foreign Policy is not about right .
      4 If the Iraqi accept the presence of Iranian and Turkish forces , they must also accept the presence of US forces .
      5 Why should the Iraqis have the right to have a government as in the US ?
      6 International law is a luxury that most countries can not afford .
      7 US forces are in Iraq because the liberals want it .Thus complain on Capitol Hill .
      8 Americans are not freedom fighters.
      9 Iraq can not claim any right on freedom .
      10 Iraq has only itself to blame for the US invasion .
      Last point : the US military presence in Iraq is almost insignifiant .Thus other question please .

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
        What Gives Us the Right to Stay in Iraq?

        Is it our high sense of entitlement as self righteous Americans that gives us the right to invade any country we want, stay for as long as we want, with little to no regard for international law and the free will of the people we're invading?

        Iraq doesn't want us there. The Iraqis don't want us there. The war is over, yet we persist. At what point will we be judged based on our actions and not our words? We claim to be freedom fighters, yet what part about Iraq is free? Replacing one tyrannical ruler with another in Washington is not freedom. The people of Iraq have not been freed. We know this to be true because there is not an American here who would want the "government" we forced upon them. . . . .
        In 2010, the Iraqi government had the opportunity to renew the Status of Forces Agreement (SofA) that served as the legal underpinning of the US military's presence in Iraq 2004-2010, but yielding to the sentiments of their people, the Iraqi government demurred, thus paving the way for the withdrawal of US forces in 2010. In 2014, the Iraqi government asked Pres Obama for military assistance to combat ISIS' gains.

        As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. . . . .

        "U.S. Said to Rebuff Iraqi Request to Strike Militants," by Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, 11 Jun 2014
        Within two months, Pres Obama announced renewed US military involvement in Iraqi affairs.

        "Good morning. Over the past two days, American pilots and crews have served with courage and skill in the skies over Iraq.

        First, American forces have conducted targeted airstrikes against terrorist forces outside the city of Erbil to prevent them from advancing on the city and to protect our American diplomats and military personnel. So far, these strikes have successfully destroyed arms and equipment that ISIL terrorists could have used against Erbil. Meanwhile, Kurdish forces on the ground continue to defend the city, and the United States and the Iraqi government have stepped up our military assistance to Kurdish forces as they wage their fight.

        Second, our humanitarian effort continues to help the men, women and children stranded on Mount Sinjar. American forces have so far conducted two successful airdrops -- delivering thousands of meals and gallons of water to these desperate men, women and children. And American aircraft are positioned to strike ISIL terrorists around the mountain to help forces in Iraq break the siege and rescue those who are trapped there.

        Now, even as we deal with these immediate situations, we continue to pursue a broader strategy in Iraq. We will protect our American citizens in Iraq, whether they’re diplomats, civilians or military. If these terrorists threaten our facilities or our personnel, we will take action to protect our people.

        We will continue to provide military assistance and advice to the Iraqi government and Kurdish forces as they battle these terrorists, so that the terrorists cannot establish a permanent safe haven. . . . . "

        "Statement by the President [Barack Obama] on Iraq," released by the Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, 9 Aug 2014
        It would seem that Pres Obama was reluctant to reintroduce US forces into Iraq, and did so only after lengthy consideration. To the best of my knowledge, Iraqi authorities have not asked US forces to be withdrawn from Iraq since that time. Apparently the Iraqi government still believes that US forces are necessary to keep ISIS at bay. If the US should refuse the Iraqis' request for military assistance, then the Iraqi government believes that the Iraqi people will be vulnerable to ISIS' depredations.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

          In 2010, the Iraqi government had the opportunity to renew the Status of Forces Agreement (SofA) that served as the legal underpinning of the US military's presence in Iraq 2004-2010, but yielding to the sentiments of their people, the Iraqi government demurred, thus paving the way for the withdrawal of US forces in 2010. In 2014, the Iraqi government asked Pres Obama for military assistance to combat ISIS' gains.



          Within two months, Pres Obama announced renewed US military involvement in Iraqi affairs.



          It would seem that Pres Obama was reluctant to reintroduce US forces into Iraq, and did so only after lengthy consideration. To the best of my knowledge, Iraqi authorities have not asked US forces to be withdrawn from Iraq since that time. Apparently the Iraqi government still believes that US forces are necessary to keep ISIS at bay. If the US should refuse the Iraqis' request for military assistance, then the Iraqi government believes that the Iraqi people will be vulnerable to ISIS' depredations.
          The Iraqis were stupid for kicking us out in the first place. Now the Iraqis have learned that doing it again to quickly might be bad for them.

          I wonder if the US could be formed in this era considering how easy it is to use violence if you do not get your way. Imagine how posticivil war US would of been. Or how the anti slavery movement would be carried out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by craven View Post

            The Iraqis were stupid for kicking us out in the first place. Now the Iraqis have learned that doing it again to quickly might be bad for them.

            I wonder if the US could be formed in this era considering how easy it is to use violence if you do not get your way. Imagine how posticivil war US would of been. Or how the anti slavery movement would be carried out.
            I'd say that the slave-owning interests pretty much had their way, within the context of constitutional developments, by imposing sharecropping and Jim Crow on the newly freed slaves -- with a healthy dose of Klan terror.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post


              Any other obvious questions?
              There was peace before the invasion.
              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                In 2010, the Iraqi government had the opportunity to renew the Status of Forces Agreement (SofA) that served as the legal underpinning of the US military's presence in Iraq 2004-2010, but yielding to the sentiments of their people, the Iraqi government demurred, thus paving the way for the withdrawal of US forces in 2010. In 2014, the Iraqi government asked Pres Obama for military assistance to combat ISIS' gains.



                Within two months, Pres Obama announced renewed US military involvement in Iraqi affairs.



                It would seem that Pres Obama was reluctant to reintroduce US forces into Iraq, and did so only after lengthy consideration. To the best of my knowledge, Iraqi authorities have not asked US forces to be withdrawn from Iraq since that time. Apparently the Iraqi government still believes that US forces are necessary to keep ISIS at bay. If the US should refuse the Iraqis' request for military assistance, then the Iraqi government believes that the Iraqi people will be vulnerable to ISIS' depredations.
                Fair points if I posted this thread in 2014. Today, ISIS is defeated in Iraq, our presence is no longer necessary. You've based your statement off of out-dated info. The article I posted shows current sentiments. It's time to go.
                "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                - Benjamin Franklin

                The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                  There was peace before the invasion.
                  Not true. Saddam had previously waged two aggressive wars against Kuwait and Iran and was openly hostile to the peace imposed on him, particularly the "No fly zones" where he regularly tried to engage Coalition aircraft (mostly US) with SAM's and other AA assets.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    Not true. Saddam had previously waged two aggressive wars against Kuwait and Iran and was openly hostile to the peace imposed on him, particularly the "No fly zones" where he regularly tried to engage Coalition aircraft (mostly US) with SAM's and other AA assets.
                    Our invasion happened more than a decade after the Kuwait war.

                    https://nypost.com/2019/12/07/russia...-libya-report/

                    Are you ready to go to war with Russia? They're engaging US aircraft and prohibiting peace.
                    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                      Our invasion happened more than a decade after the Kuwait war.
                      So? The No-fly zones were still in effect and Saddam had fired on planes enforcing it. In fact, starting shortly after 9/11, the Iraqi military was firing on planes enforcing the zones almost daily.

                      https://nypost.com/2019/12/07/russia...-libya-report/

                      Are you ready to go to war with Russia? They're engaging US aircraft and prohibiting peace.
                      What's a US drone doing over Libya? You pays your money you takes your chances. No difference with the Gary Powers U-2 or a US drone over Iran. We spy, they spy, everybody spies.

                      The No-fly zones were imposed as part of a peace settlement imposed on Iraq by the UN and enforced by UN members after Saddam had invaded Kuwait. Totally different thing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        So? The No-fly zones were still in effect and Saddam had fired on planes enforcing it. In fact, starting shortly after 9/11, the Iraqi military was firing on planes enforcing the zones almost daily.



                        What's a US drone doing over Libya? You pays your money you takes your chances. No difference with the Gary Powers U-2 or a US drone over Iran. We spy, they spy, everybody spies.

                        The No-fly zones were imposed as part of a peace settlement imposed on Iraq by the UN and enforced by UN members after Saddam had invaded Kuwait. Totally different thing.
                        So the US gets to violate the UN, but Iraq doesn't.

                        The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

                        Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter.
                        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

                        How should we be punished? Fair's fair right? Who will invade us for violating UN law?
                        "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                          So the US gets to violate the UN, but Iraq doesn't.



                          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

                          How should we be punished? Fair's fair right? Who will invade us for violating UN law?
                          That comes back to my original post in this thread...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just for the record, Tac, Lil' Bush started the war in Iraq because he didn't want to aggravate his oil partners in Saudi, which was actually responsible for 911.

                            One possible answer to your question is that we have not settled anything in Iraq, and we cannot safely leave them alone.

                            Beyond that, I'm with you on this one. or get off the pot. Our presence there long after the war accomplished nothing but generating hatred among the Iraqi's; however, they are wrapped very tightly since they hate the West but everything worth having in their nation was either built by the West, developed by the West, or bought from the West. Hate us, but love those hospitals, airlines, cellphones, cars, air conditioners, Western clothing, music, stoves and refrigerators. They're a totally schizophrenic nation without any functional reality testing.

                            Being there - in fact the war itself - was extremely costly while of of absolutely no benefit to America., as is not the pattern for all American actions in the Middle East. We have forgotten the purpose of fighting wars. Imagine what WWII would have been like if we fought then as we do now.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              That comes back to my original post in this thread...
                              So you think someone should bomb us. Who?
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X