Just as arrogant as you are, claiming to know their wishes without even exchanging a single word with any of them.
Do enlighten me, please. Is the ambition for power so strong for the US that they would rather let it all go up in flames before they would even consider handing the power to the UN?
If the US were to leave as you seem to wish, why not do it the right way and hand over the reins of power to the UN and the arab league?
You see, i too want the US out of Iraq, but i am not so ignorant and irresponsible to want it at all costs.
We agree that the US should leave, but that is all. You claim they should just pack and leave (creating a power vaccum), while i say that they should leave AFTER they hand over the power and allow time for the UN and/or arab league to place their own troops on the field. Then, and only then, can the US leave Iraq. If they start handing over power tomorrow, by June 30th they can start packing their bags to go home. The entire US military would be home for christmas.

Who is the arrogant now?
Had the iraqis submited to the american rule without so much as a wimper, they would be a "marvelous" people, a "freedom loving" people. But because they are now rebeling against a US imposed government, they are suddenlly unworthy? Suddenlly they don´t deserve anything anymore?
And since Saddam has a lot to thank the US for his rise to power, it is only fair that it is the US who picks up the tab. Why should any other nation pay for your past and present mistakes?
It´s as if you had your bulldog invade your neighbours backyard, dig holes, trash their garden and their tool shed, and shit all over the place. And then you call him out and refuse to pay for the damage while demanding all the other neighbours from your street to pay for it all in your place, because they use the street too!

You do realize what would happen if the US forces were to leave Iraq, just like that, don´t you? And who do you think would suffer more with the subsequent oil crisis that ensues the civil war? Not me, that´s for shure!
An oil crisis would cause world wide economic chaos, but the US would be hurt the most. And i doubt that´s what you want.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Ranger, you know it isn't possible for the U.S to just leave the country. It would be the admission that all this was a big mistake. Be realistic, you see George doing that?
I think Swamp-T is right, the UN have to be involved, it is the only practical solution. The problem is, the more the US wait, the more angry the Iraqis will get, and the less likely it will be that the situation will ever be stabilized.

I must say I find it hard to believe how many mistakes the Bush planners made. I know they'll want to maintain a presence, in order to get some of their investment back, but I don't see how it will be possible, what with the Iraqis wanting them out.

Swampthing and lulu,

You guys obviously aren't "getting" what Ranger is saying. He obviously knows the US can't leave, because Iraq would be a mess (you guys are agreeing basically). He said what he did because some Iraqis say they want the US and Brits out, perhaps, without thinking of what will happen and it would be interesting to see how they feel some time after a US/UK troop pullout. [Sorry if I am wrong BTW]

The article pretty much sounds like the Iraqis were mostly glad about the invasion, even now (6 in 10 glad Hussein is out, half doing better than before and a quarter doing the same). At the same time, they are now complaining about the presence of US/UK troops, who are there for stabilization (and to protect US oil interest too - I'm not blind to that). They are afraid of being seen helping the coalition because THEIR OWN PEOPLE might kill them.

I'd have to say that they are asking for too much and I guess that's what the article is getting at as well (and Ranger too). They wanted a swift invasion, which they got, and they also wanted a swift return to stability, which they haven't gotten. "So yeah, let's kick the foreigners out now, and we'll let regional warlords take over and we can start a civil war between the different tribes!"

Just curious... which arab nations would commit their troops to the peacekeeping in Iraq? I would think that they would not want to get involved due to the politics of such a task. Can you imagine how pissed off the people of the arab nation would be, if their country sends their troops to help fight Iraqi dissidents (which is essentially what peacekeeping would be)? And in that case I don't think it matters if it's UN or US led.

hehehhehe is right, of course. I'm being more sarcastic than serious. I believe we never should have "handled" the Iraq situation the way we (or Bush, rather) did, but I also realize that certain charitable "obligations" are probably in order now that we have. I was just poking fun at SwamP_ThinG, who always seems to want it both ways, somehow, no matter how unrealistic that actually is.


I agree.

One thing that we have all noticed is the chummy "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" relationship between this current Republican administration and the Big American Oil Companies and their suppliers, like Halliburton. They all supported Bush very heavily, for what he could bring them financially. If their interests are threatened or they are forced to vacate them altogether it would not bode well for Bush and Co. politically, that's for sure. It would do those companies good to have to learn the hard way the possible costs and consequences of following a fool into a disaster.


I don't think there are any Arab UN troops, are there? Except maybe the Turks, and nobody in their right mind is ever going to voluntarily let them get a toe-hold in Iraq - particularly not the Kurdish minority in the country. That alone would constitute casus belli for an instant civil war, so far as they're concerned. The Kurds and the Turks hate each other; that's exactly why there are no Turkish forces in northern Iraq right now. So what Arab UN troops are you referring to? You need several hundred thousand of them, remember, and you'll be needing them for years. Do you know of any Arab UN armies of about 2-4 million (because that's what it would take) that could handle that job?

The reality of who will pay the ongoing costs of rebuilding Iraq is very, very clear. The US will continue to foot the bill only for as long as we are actually in full charge of the country, militarily. Once the US troops pull out, the stream of US money will dry up very quickly indeed. It will be reduced to a tiny "token" trickle that will only be maintained for the sake of political appearances. Surely that much is obvious from past incidents of this sort. Once the US troops are out of there the Iraqi's will find themselves on their own, finanacially, for all intents and purposes, I think.

And so it should be. They were never entitled to economic "welfare" from the US, not even because of the war. Just because one country defeats another in battle does not make them automatically responsible for taking care of that country financially afterward, and certainly not forever. Everything that they receive now is simple charity, and nothing more. We're not financially obligated to them in any way, not legally. Anybody that truly believes otherwise is merely indulging themselves in some sort of wishful thinking.

The Iraqi's themselves need to "get real" with regards to our actual legal liabilities in this matter. We have none. The Iraqi's themselves will have to pay the lion's share of the costs for the consequences of their own military and political foolishness themselves.

The Iraqi's should also be thankful that we don't just adopt a "winner takes all" attitude and make Iraq the 51st State of the USA. That's what winners used to do. They truly owned the countries they conquered, in the literal sense. The people of the conquered country had no rights of any sort. They became the "property" of the victor, to do with as they pleased.


How do you know I haven't? How do you know that I don't every day? More presumptuous arrogance on your part...


Some would. Others would be happy to hand it all over to the UN today, if they could, but the UN does not actually seem to be offering to take the problem off our hands right now, are they? I don't think they really want it either.


Then what's your complaint?


Why should we? Lets just ignore it. It will all go away eventually. It always does.


I think we could handle it. We'd survive.


Yes, it's truly incredible what a shitty "war president" Bush has turned out to be. Unbelievable.

I agree that we probably won't ever get our investment back.


The ball is definitely in the Iraqi's court now. They will have to pull themselves together or they will all sink together into civil war eventually. They have to get tough on their own hardliners themselves, or accept their own responsibility for failing to do so, and all the consequences that follow.

US patience is not infinite. We have given them the opportunity and the resources and the tools to make it work, but if they won't take advantage of that opportunity themselves then the US will have to pull out and leave them to deal with their problems themselves, sooner or later here. It's only a matter of time - the clock is ticking and time is running out for them.

It's up to them, now. Only they can truly save themselves from themselves. We can't do that for them. And their time is running out fast. Faster than they think, if you believe the polls over here right now.

I didn't agree with Bush on Iraq. I think he's a wide-eyed fool. But I also have no doubt at all that if the Iraqi's HAD met us with flowers, and had welcomed us and worked with us, and had put their hearts, hands and heads into creating a new country for themselves, they could have done it, with our help.

They could have done it.

I do believe that much. It's really all up to them, in the end. First they have to be able to agree amongst themselves, and learn to compromise. Maybe they can't get along with each other. Not ever. With us there or not.

.

So, if I unerstood you correctly, even though the US attacked a sovereign country, in violation of every imaginable international law, annihilating its industry, economy, and infrastructure, and killing tens of thousands people, that still does not make the aggressor obligated to its victim? Ever heard of reparations?

__________________

I have to agree with Aether here.

You've given them a shitload of metal from above, and the resources are in American hands at the moment, right?


Who will save them and us from the USA?


Whose military and political foolishness was it again that led to the current situation?


So this is how the "defender of freedom, peace and democracy" should implement it's values? Attack anyone it likes and then do whatever it wants with them? You can just decide which country you would like to have as your property next and then take it?

"Because we can" is a lousy reason for a civilised country to act this way.

__________________

Yeah, Germany was such a sapp!! Those fools, paying retributions...
They should have just denied responsability and let it dragg in courts for the next 50 years, untill everybody that had something due dies out.
And Japan? Haa! Just imagine how many clock radios and walkmans they must have built to pay all those war retributions, unnecessarily!
[sarcasm]

I see a pattern here. The US only wants to be on the receiving end, not the paying end. They left Vietnam abandoned to their rotten luck, and didn´t pay a cent for those carpet bombings. Neither did France for Dien Bien Phu, wich might i add is now on its 50th birthday.
It seems that since the Cold War started, no nation has ever payed its dues anymore. Hummm, except one country and guess just what country that was?
That´s right!! But no cigar for you!! The name is Iraq!!
They payed it with their own blood and a big chunk of their own future.
The pattern is simple:
When a powerfull nation is on the receiving end, and the poor country is on the paying end, the first will muscle their way into a fat retribution pay check, and the poor country has to shit gold for them till they pay it all or go bust trying.
But when the tables turn, the powerfull nations will muscle their way OUT of paying their dues, maybe by placing a convenient threat of sanctions or two, or wave the battle axe around.
As for Iraq, it will end up with the short end of the stick, like always. They are getting quite acostumed to it. Ever so often, a powerfull nation or empire will come allong, reek havok all around and then leave in a cloud of dust.
The British Empire did it for ages, around the world and never payed one friggin cent. Why should the US be any diferent? They come, blow the place to kingdom come, harvest every resource available and then leave those poor bastards to their rotten luck...
The Spanish Empire did it, the Portuguese Empire did it,the Roman Empire did it, Kublai Khan did it, and Bush Junior will do it too. Fact of life.

Paying retributions, allthough morally and legally right, is for suckers! Only the poor ever pay them. The rich will sleeze their way out of it, as always. The only time when you´ll see a powerfull nation paying retributions is when they are rased to the ground, like post-war Germany and Japan. If those big strong nations manage to keep some of its military might intact, there is no one nor nothing that will force them to pay.
In the immortal words of James Hetfield, it´s "sad, but true".
I wish it were diferent, but it isn´t.

Anyone that expects the US to be true to their word of rebuilding Iraq, is a total sapp!
While giving with one hand, they take twice as much with the other.
The US is in there for the bucks, not the hearts and minds. As soon as the bucks stop flowing, it´s time to shit fire and scram the hell out of there.
That´s why something has to be done, before there is nothing left to save.
They need real elections, the US forces to leave, and friendly troops to come in.Shurely not Iranian forces, nor turkish. But there are plenty of arab nation friends to Iraq that don´t have their own agenda to maintain. Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, even Jordan. These nations don´t have plans to take over a chunk of iraqi territory for themselfs.The iraqis just want the americans out, because they grow weiry of them. 12 years of sanctions, bombings, and now a full scale occupation? Of course they are scared. They see it as another Palestine, another Israel. But if you change american forces with Arab League forces, the majority of iraqis will comply.
At least it´s a damn better prospect than having the americans there. And it´s a more viable solution for the region.
The question is: Will the americans accept giving up their goose with the golden eggs?
Slim chance...
:meh:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I didn't agree with the attack on Iraq but in the end, despite the Bush lies, the rift between the US and the world, the damage and death toll in Iraq, etc... it seems that the Iraqis are glad to have gotten Saddam out according to the article, and many world leaders expressed relief when he was found.

Despite the means, the Iraqis are happier in the end because of the attack so why would you bring up reparations? As Ranger said, the US already paid dearly (money and lives), so what is wrong with asking for some self-reliance. But ok, self-reliance is not as highly rated all over the world as in the US I understand. I am also surprised because I would think that you guys (Portuguese, Russian, and Finnish if I am not mistaken) would know how much it sucks to be under a dictator (Finland indirectly since Stalin made them give up land etc.). Well ok, I am not really surprised that it comes from you guys LOL.

What do you have to be afraid of?

Everybody's. The Iraqis let Saddam climb to power, don't forget that. It all depends on how far back you want to go in the blame game. It's like the US stupidity for letting Bush become president (although he may have had some help...).

Again, I doubt he means it. I think he just got tired of all the useless whining... I don't know if it's the language (all of your English abilities are great BTW) or insight but you guys never seem to be able to read between the lines.

Indonesia and Nigeria are arab nations? Maybe you meant majority muslim. And they both have enough problems of their own. Do you really think they should be sending troops to Iraq? Really just asking... Jordan has stated that they would not send troops to Iraq.

I asked before, what arab nation would send forces to Iraq considering the political risk in their home country?

The industry, riches and everything in Iraq is made by us (I mean UK US Germany and France). Those Iraqis are a nomadic population which doesn't belong to anywhere and just went living there because Western Countries found oil. Those arabs (this is not the case of the Kurds) are parasites that WE accept there as Iraqis but they exist only because WE think they do. What if we change our minds and put them back on their camels and send them to nowehere where they belong ? This is the REAL TRUTH about Iraq. They should be warned THE COALITION and its interests is in charge of their future.

__________________
From SR