Americans are now VERY tired of Bush's war of imperialism. This impacted on the election last week. Yet, we have many war "hawks" on this forum who still insist that the war must be fought. If that's the case, then they should set an example by fighting the war themselves.
from the thread topic article:
Shia Muslims, a minority in that district, have routinely come under attack from Sunni insurgents who control the territory. The highway passing through the region from Baghdad leads to Najaf, the holiest Shia city in Iraq, and Shia pilgrims have become a favourite target of Sunni gunmen.
Such attacks were not taking place until Bush invaded and sent in John Negroponte who installed death squads in Central America under Reagan. Here's a question for your consideration: how many of these people who were killed under Bush's watch would still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded?
Given the horror Iraq has turned out to be, maybe we should regard Saddam as a miracle worker. He kept the lid on these murderous idiots for years. Yes, he got his hands dirty. But I doubt Iraq has ever been more dangerous in the last half century than it is today.
I never hear the left say ANYTHING about how they were going to depose of a tyrrant. What's your personal take on this? How would you have deposed of Saddam Hussein?Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
You are very often a reasonable poster on this forum. While you are correct that Saddam was an evil ruler you must understand that his government was recognized by the UN. As such there is no legal basis for removing him from authority under international or under American law. Bush did NOT have the authority to invade Iraq. As I have mentioned enough times already, BUSH HAS VIOLATED THE NUREMBURG DOCTRINE and should be brought to trial for his crime.
Therefore, as someone who believes in the rule of law, I would not have violated international law by invading Iraq. Contrary to what you may want to believe, this is not a leftist position as conservatives William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, and the John Birch Society have all said that Bush's actions are criminal!
As for who is to pay for the consequences of Bush's crimes, I will leave that up to the newly convened Nuremburg Tribunal to determine the proper remedy. Most likely it will compel the wealthy elites who profited from the war to pay for it and for the compensation due to Iraqis.
1)My question was actually about cleaning up, not paying. If the US pulls out now, do you not believe that Iraq would be left in chaos?
2)Who sould bare the brunt of the responsiblity of cleaning that up?
3)What if the whole region goes for a shyte?
4)Do you believe we should maintain a military presence until stablity is reached or should we simply pull out and leave it to the locals?
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````
1) 'cleaning up'
By this you mean resolving all conflicts within Iraq, I assume.
Bear in mind that Iraq is already in chaos - one created by Bush - so that things can only improve if there is a cessation of hostilities. The quick solution is, US out - UN in.
An international peace force comprised exclusively of Middle Eastern forces has already been suggested (forgot who said it but I can look it up later on). It should be administered by the UN but no other international forces as that is considered rather objectionable by ME people. This is a far better option than what we see today in Iraq.
See the following for proof:
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/...aq_deaths_dc_1 (external - login to view)
2) UN administers, ME troops patrol militarily.
3) During Vietnam we were told the entire region would go "shyte". But after the USA left, the entire region became capitalist. Quite ironic, eh?
4) US out - UN in. That's the law.