[BRussell]

Simple question.

[HackManDan]

Simple answer: Probably a little of both.

[moodymonster]

they were violent before America and will be violent after America.

In retrospect, Saddam stayed in power because he was brutal enough to control them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Violence is simply a normal thing in the Middle East. The sun rises, the sun sets, and Middle Easterners kill.

[ebuddy]

Preventing violence.

[lpkmckenna]

No, I don't think the American presence is causing the violence; it was the policy of disbanding the Iraqi military and intelligence structures that is causing the violence.

Disbanding the Iraqi military remains one of the most short-sighted acts ever.

[tie]

Originally, yes -- but now there is a full-blown civil war, and the American presence no longer matters.

[BRussell]

I don't really know, but I think the question has to be asked. The way the debate seems to be framed now is this:

Favor withdrawal = think war was a mistake so cut our losses now
Favor staying = want US to succeed in Iraq no matter how difficult

But what if our presence is the cause of the current failure? What if getting out reduced tensions and violence there? Or, more likely, what if setting a firm timeline for getting out would light a fire under their asses to get things together?

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Simple question.

A simPLISTIC question maybe. But not a simple one.

It's clear that there were geometric progressions of greater violence in the world after we became involved in World War Two.

Should we have stayed home and done nothing so we could minimize the violence?

A simplistic way of looking at the situation would conclude that reducing the level of violence by any means necessary as quickly as possible was the best course of action.

I'm afraid that simplistic way of thinking would have resulted in my greeting you with, Zieg Heil, BRussell, Zieg Heil!

But, thankfully we avoided that danger because people did not think like you do here.

So, let's start practicing now.

Salaam aleikum, BRussell.

To which you shall reply, "aleikum salaam."

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Simple question.

Causing it in the short term in hopes of preventing GREATER violence in the long term.

And if that is too complicated for you I'll make it as simple as possible.

Preventing violence.

[moodymonster]

what is happening is Iraq is the reason why GB senior didn't go in back in 1991. Unless you're prepared to rule like Saddam and occasionally go to war to distract people, the situation in Iraq will remain.

The question is whether keeping coalition forces there is merely prolonging the day when they are withdrawn and the outcome will be the same.

Iraq is likely to remain the way it is until you have the rise of someone to replace Saddam.

[Millennium]

Probably both, if the truth be known. The various insurgent groups spend at least as much time fighting each other as they do fighting the US and the Iraqi government.

[marden]

We all must keep Iraq in it's proper perspective. It is no more and no less than the primary front in the global War on Terror.

That means it is like France was in WWII. In that war there were many different fronts. On some we were doing better than on others. No one of them was the ONLY battle being fought in the war until right before the A-Bombs were dropped.

Iraq is important, as is Afghanistan, but there are other fronts where the war is going on.

We are just lucky that circumstances haven't called on us to go to those other fronts with troops.

What some of you persist in thinking is that the violence in Iraq is all there is.

It ain't.

The Islamists never sleep.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

they were violent before America and will be violent after America.

In retrospect, Saddam stayed in power because he was brutal enough to control them.

"they"? Who are "they"?

[Sayf-Allah]

As for an answer. It was the catalyst for the violence. And continues to fuel the violence.

Withdrawing will probably cause a temporary increase in the civil war that is now going on but it will stabilise sooner if the US withdraws.

Simple as that.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't really know, but I think the question has to be asked. The way the debate seems to be framed now is this:

Favor withdrawal = think war was a mistake so cut our losses now
Favor staying = want US to succeed in Iraq no matter how difficult

But what if our presence is the cause of the current failure? What if getting out reduced tensions and violence there? Or, more likely, what if setting a firm timeline for getting out would light a fire under their asses to get things together?

i agree with you but need to ask 'what is success?'

seems like we don't even know ... also a unified iraq seems like distant dream now.

the place is really a mess and no one is really sure what to do now. not the iraqis, not president bush, not the european union (aka tony blair), and not the other gulf states.

this situation is dire and getting worse, and will get worse before it gets better.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by marden 

We all must keep Iraq in it's proper perspective. It is no more and no less than the primary front in the global War on Terror.

That means it is like France was in WWII. In that war there were many different fronts. On some we were doing better than on others. No one of them was the ONLY battle being fought in the war until right before the A-Bombs were dropped.

Iraq is important, as is Afghanistan, but there are other fronts where the war is going on.

We are just lucky that circumstances haven't called on us to go to those other fronts with troops.

What some of you persist in thinking is that the violence in Iraq is all there is.

It ain't.

The Islamists never sleep.

I think you posted in the wrong thread!?

That's what this thread is about: "Is the American presence in Iraq causing or preventing violence there?"


My personal opinion?
Well, it's the same as this one:

Originally Posted by tie

Originally, yes -- but now there is a full-blown civil war, and the American presence no longer matters.

[marden]

Originally Posted by badidea 

I think you posted in the wrong thread!?

That's what this thread is about: "Is the American presence in Iraq causing or preventing violence there?"

I posted it here because this is where it is most needed.

This question: "Is the American presence in Iraq causing or preventing violence there?" is irrelevant or immaterial or unimportant compared to the big picture.

Those of you who focus on Iraq as an isolated "problem" or situation need to re-calibrate.

Until you do you will continually misperceive the President and the threat the President is trying to address.

Until you do you will remain puzzled.

As difficult as this may be to do, I ask that you try to put aside whatever you might think of the President or what he did or didn't do and frame EVERYTHING in terms of a global threat and you will begin to see Iraq and the President's actions clearly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

In retrospect, Saddam stayed in power because he was brutal enough to control them.

... and was provided the WMD with which to control them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Causing it in the short term in hopes of preventing GREATER violence in the long term.

And if that is too complicated for you I'll make it as simple as possible.

Preventing violence.

War is peace

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

War is peace

It worked in WWII.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

... frame EVERYTHING in terms of a global threat and you will begin to see Iraq and the President's actions clearly.

In terms of a global threat, the actions taken are justifiable. The question, however, is "is there a global threat?" I'm not convinced there is.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

In terms of a global threat, the actions taken are justifiable. The question, however, is "is there a global threat?" I'm not convinced there is.

Make things happen

Watch things happen

"What happened?"

I thought you were a cross between #1 & #2.

Your comment suggests you might be a #3.

But that's not a criticism. I dated several people who were #3's.

Circumstances had a way of nudging them along the reality timeline.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I thought you were a cross between #1 & #2.

Your comment suggests you might be a #3.

But that's not a criticism. I dated several people who were #3's.

Circumstances had a way of nudging them along the reality timeline.

There's a vast difference between "making things happen" and "making the right things happen". I'm all for "making things happen", but I want to be certain that the right things are made to happen.

Saddam, Bin Laden, and Hitler were very good at "making things happen" as well.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There's a vast difference between "making things happen" and "making the right things happen". I'm all for "making things happen", but I want to be certain that the right things are made to happen.

Saddam, Bin Laden, and Hitler were very good at "making things happen" as well.

Come on, don't get testy. What I meant was that since you don't believe there is a global threat after all we presented here and you don't give any indication that you are aggressively pursuing the truth by reading enough to get a good sense of the threat then you will learn the truth in due time.

After it happens and you and the other posters here have a chance to talk about it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Come on, don't get testy. What I meant was that since you don't believe there is a global threat after all we presented here and you don't give any indication that you are aggressively pursuing the truth by reading enough to get a good sense of the threat then you will learn the truth in due time.

That has nothing to do with

"Make things happen

Watch things happen

"What happened?""

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That has nothing to do with

"Make things happen

Watch things happen

"What happened?""

Sure it does.

A person who aggressively searches for the truth by research or interviewing the people who know and going to different sources to get the answers can use that information to make decisions. And even if they don't take action their opinions and views will cause OTHERS to change their minds, cause others to research and investigate, make waves.

They MAKE things happen. Like a miner digging for gold.

A person who is an astute observer takes in the passing parade of people and events and draws conclusions from them without bothering to do much investigation they nonetheless pay attention and try not to miss the signs that do seep out of the sources and float to the surface. They are observant.

They watch things happen. And like a gold panner they sift through the dirt and rocks and sand that float downstream to discover the gold nuggets that are of value.

A person who asks, "what happened" are in their own world and either by choice or default find there is no gold for them but they do manage to hear that someone else found gold AFTER it happened. And after the fact they will discuss it and hash it over and dissect it and try to make sense of it. And when people of the first two types try to shed light on the situation for the "what happened" folks, the advice is met with skepticism by the "happenin group."

These guys ask what happened and miss out on the gold.

Get it?

[OAW]

In my view it is causing some of the violence, and definitely not preventing any of it. It appears to be causing the violence tied to the insurgency. However, it is probably not causing the violence tied to the sectarian strife directly. Indirectly perhaps, in that part of the justification of the Sunni attacks on the Shia is their view that the Shia are "collaborating with the enemy" so to speak by US support of the Shiite dominated Iraqi government. Having said that, if the US pulled out tomorrow I don't think the Sunni vs Shia violence will disappear. Once the blood-letting begins it's rather difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. It will likely have to run its course until one side wins or both sides get sick and tired of the fighting.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

Sure it does.

A person who aggressively searches for the truth by research or interviewing the people who know and going to different sources to get the answers can use that information to make decisions. And even if they don't take action their opinions and views will cause OTHERS to change their minds, cause others to research and investigate, make waves.

They MAKE things happen. Like a miner digging for gold.

A person who is an astute observer takes in the passing parade of people and events and draws conclusions from them without bothering to do much investigation they nonetheless pay attention and try not to miss the signs that do seep out of the sources and float to the surface. They are observant.

They watch things happen. And like a gold panner they sift through the dirt and rocks and sand that float downstream to discover the gold nuggets that are of value.

A person who asks, "what happened" are in their own world and either by choice or default find there is no gold for them but they do manage to hear that someone else found gold AFTER it happened. And after the fact they will discuss it and hash it over and dissect it and try to make sense of it. And when people of the first two types try to shed light on the situation for the "what happened" folks, the advice is met with skepticism by the "happenin group."

These guys ask what happened and miss out on the gold.

Get it?

Just because someone disagrees with your assessment of threat, does not mean they are not actively seeking the truth. It just means they've concluded a different truth than you have.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just because someone disagrees with your assessment of threat, does not mean they are not actively seeking the truth. It just means they've concluded a different truth than you have.

I can't recall the last time an intelligent America loving person disagreed with me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I can't recall the last time an intelligent America loving person disagreed with me.

That might be because you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as an unintelligent-America-hating person.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That might be because you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as an unintelligent-America-hating person.

[Sky Captain]

The problem in Iraq is that these people have been denied slaughtering each other for decades.
Now the wholesale slaughter has begun.
They want the Americans out so they can kill on a genocidal level.
Time to leave and let them sort it out.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That might be because you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as an unintelligent-America-hating person.

.... which is ironic on so many levels.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

They want the Americans out so they can kill on a genocidal level.
Time to leave and let them sort it out.

'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' Powell told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.'

Time to send more troops.

[DLQ2006]

We can't make it good for Iraq. Only Iraqis can make Iraq a good place. Therefore, if the question is what our coarse of action should be in Iraq, then we need to identify the goals that serve American interests. I submit that our basic goals are:

1) That Iraq is a pro-Western democracy and not be a haven for terrorists.

2) Iraq will not be a place that terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction.

3) there will be sufficient stability in the region to allow trade of oil and to prevent neighboring Arab states from taking advantage of a weakened Iraq. (particularly Iran).

As to the first objective, history shows us that third world countries with an overwhelming majority of islamic fundamentalists (and in countries like Iraq, they are all fundamentalists) will not embrace pro-western values because Islam is too incompatible with these values. Furthermore, they would sooner die than become like us and they would choose to die in order to kill us.

As to the 2nd and third objectives, the only way to obtain these will be by force for the very reason that the first objective is unattainable. First off, we need to stop being afraid to identify what our objectives are. Then, ultimatums need to be given to Iraq that clearly state our demands. These ultimatums need to be enforced with a threat of overwhelming military force whose objectives would be to punish only, with no concern for the well-being and prosperity of the country. While the military violence would be brief and targeted, the fear of collateral damage would in no way limit our actions. The longer we avoid this coarse of action, the longer we will have large numbers of troops that will be forced to remain in Iraq dying while we fail to meet our objectives, or we will be forced to withdrawal having failed to meet our objectives.