Five years after the invasion of Iraq the world has become much more dangerous and volatile. Latest estimates suggest as many as one million have died violent deaths as a result of the occupation of Iraq. The country's infrastructure and civil society are in shreds. Brown has promised British withdrawals but there are still 5,000 British soldiers in Iraq.
Despite talk of a change of attitude to the Bush's wars, Brown is Bush's key partner in NATO's escalation in Afghanistan, and that hidden war is fast becoming a disaster mirroring that in Iraq. Meanwhile the political chaos in Pakistan is partly a product of the War on Terror and risks further military interventions. The Stop the War Coalition has joined with CND in calling a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion in London on Saturday March 15.
The demonstration will coincide with World Against War marches around the world agreed at the International Peace Conference in London on December 1st. It will be calling for all foreign troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and demanding there is no attack on Iran. Stop the War is asking all groups to start mobilising for this demonstration now. More details and a leaflet will be available shortly.
Demo details
The demo will assemble for a rally in Trafalgar Square, march down Whitehall, cross the river and return for final speeches in Parliament Square, so surrounding parliament.
____________________________________________
The destruction of Iraq continues; its people killed amidst bombings and atrocities, a million or more dead, many more than two million driven from their homes, the social and economic infrastructure shattered. In Afghanistan the US military is spending $65,000 a minute and there are four times as many air strikes than in Iraq.
The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in untold suffering for the people of these countries. Yet British troops remain in both countries.
The International Peace Conference we organised in London in December agreed to hold anti-war demonstrations across the world in March 2008. The UK demonstration takes place in London on 15 March. I hope you will join me there.
This requires many thousands of pounds for national and international co-ordination; running costs for the national office, printing of leaflets and posters, travel costs and much else.
Stop the War is wholly dependent on donations, money-raising events, affiliation fees from individuals, peace groups, trade unions and other organizations. Unfortunately this is never enough.
very bad war lasted longer than all other wars , cost more, and what has been achieved? nothing, a less stable more hostile people who have their oil stolen by the corporations who created the war based on lies.
like the last scene of Charlie Wilson's war, where he asks for money for the schools in Afghanistan and the committee laughs at him
i just hope we get Bush and his cronies before the Hauge
you two and your peers are mis-informed sheep. get your facts straight, losers.
Sure, it cost more, but casualties on all sides have been dramatically less - by anyone's count.
So lets leave now, while first-world armies, the strongest in the history of the world, have been keeping an un-easy peace. let's leave now and damn the iraqi people to the perpetual hell of fighting to fill the power vacuum.
i used to protest the war...but then my financial advisor informed me that ny portfolio is heavy in defense stocks and that the war was actually good for me...i smile much more these days
Does the fact that the North Sea oil fields are in decline and that the UK is now a net oil importer mean anything to the people in London?
Granted, the UK isn't as wasteful with oil as the USA, but I've been there before. I've sat in traffic jams on the M25 the M3, M4... I know people that pay the ~ $8/gallon for petrol because taking the train is more expensive yet. And living in central London is prohibitively expensive. Outside of the tourist central cities of the UK and Europe there are big box retailers and strip malls just like in N. America. There is auto centric sprawl. I've seen it with my own two eyes. I know how dependant you are on oil supply, just like America.
In many ways the UK is even more vulnerable to oil supply than the USA because outside of their own production they have to depend on hostile areas like the Middle East or an increasingly powerful Russia. They don't have a Canada next door, or opportunities for expanding their own production like the US with Alaska and the Pacific & Atlantic outer shelf.
I only bring up OIL because 5 years ago all the protests were No War for Oil. Fact is, those protestors aren't geologists. They know very little about oil. From the downstream side and it's massive impact on the industralized world to the upstream side and just how difficult it is to find the stuff and bring it to market.
I've never fallen for the line that this war is about WMD's. It's about oil, plain and simple. But...I firmly believe that if the masses knew as much about oil that your average petroleum geologist knows nobody would be protesting this weekend.
and puddles...I've made even more $$$ by investing in energy. The US military is the largest user of it in the world.
Sure, great idea. Let's protest and get the troops out....
...because the proper thing to do is leave a country in a state that begs for total anarchy. If we leave, the smaller factions will take over that place and as they fight for control, thousands of regular everyday citizens will lose their lives in the crossfire and the US will ultimately be to blame.
Not going in their in the first place would have been one thing but we can't turn back time. Leaving irresponsibly is another, we can control that.
I remember marching before Bush declared war-it was insanely cold and even though we were all against the war, we all knew that there was nothing we could do to prevent it and it was going to happen just because Bush and Cheney wanted it to. And the barricades were annoying-we had to go way up through the Upper East Side and then back down just to reach the UN. At least a lot of people were there.
I wonder if the only way to end wars now is for them to go really badly after they begin.
while this whole war was tremendous tactical and strategic cluster fuck, i don't see the world as anymore dangerous than in the past. shit the usa and ussr had tens of thousands of nukes pointed at each other for decades. that was much scarier than alqaida...
actually vado, I'd gladly go back to the cold war days when it was the USA vs. USSR and the relative peace of MAD. I can trust that far more than a place like Pakistan having nukes. Anyone who has seen the news knows that place isn't exactly stable.
and before TED can call me a republican again, I would like to state I support an immediate withdraw of US troops...from Iraq...from Afghanistan...from the Balkans...from S. Korea...for Europe...etc.
I'm 100% against the USA being the policeman of the world. But, I do think the world would be in for one heck of a shitstorm if we did that. I just don't care.
i don't think the US should be policing the world. how little we knew about iraq is reason enough for me. but there is a difference for me in the case of europe, korea, and japan. if they really wanted us to leave, we would leave. we withdrew from the phillipines, from panama. the world also twisted our arm to intervene in liberia, and because of that they have at least begun some semblance of a path to normalcy. it isn't okay to be the self-imposed policeman, but some people do depend on us for other reasons. if we are asked to go, it is different. no one asked for us to go into iraq, save for maybe this chalabi character. but there is a difference between being a self-styled policeman, who is more likely to be perceived as a bully by less powerful nations, and turning your back on the world entirely, even when it needs you.
protesting does raise awareness - dont just dis it - i bussed to dc 6 weekends prior to the war and marched. more people just have to do it - le boss is right - we have no right in controlling the world - it doesnt matter if you want troops home or not - its supporting the people of irag who drew the shorter stick. to say the world will fall apart if we leave is BS -- 'some semblance of a path to normalcy' -- right on bro!
Does anyone actually think that having the troops there for what 5 years? 10? 20? Will really make a difference?
I don't. I think Iraq will turn into a chaos until there is another dictator brutally running the show. I hope I am way wrong, but I just see too many different agendas there. Too many people willing to die (or kill) for what they want.
As far as the oil goes, I don't see how any of it benefits the US. Maybe it benefits Halliburton, but we all see oil prices in record territory.
This is a complete no win situation, with the exception of Cheney, Halliburton and other corps profiting from the war.
I still find it disturbing that the world, us citizens, the democrats, etc., have all let them get away with it. This will be looked down on as the largest conspiracy of the century, but no one will ever go to jail or be convicted.
actually the 'some semblance of a path to normalcy' was a reference to when american troops did intervene with positive results. my point wasn't to take a position either way on iraq specifically in so much as to address aquapura's remarks about isolationism, and the difference between imperialism and engaging with the world in a positive way.
in terms of iraq, i'm pretty nihlistic about the whole thing at this point. personally, i don't think we should have gone in their in the first place. i think we should have sent 130,000 troops to afghanistan, although all the mistakes, lies, and misleading don't change the current situation. but i am genuinely concerned about the iraqi people, who as TED notes are the ones at the short end of the stick. i don't know whether it is better for us to pull out or not. i hear personal reports from marines and soldiers i know, who say the news reports are skewed and that they are really the ones who are doing good over there, and of course there is the news itself. but i really can't gauge who is more biased, because i don't know any iraqis. i wish i could go there and see it for myself, but i don't want to go into the military right now. i tend to agree with trace's remark that iraq will end up being run by another dictator, either way. my prediction is that we will pull out of iraq in two years, regardless of who is president, and leave about 10,000 troops behind in some base somewhere to fight al-qaeda.
personally the best reason i can come up with from leaving iraq is, how long do you keep listening to people who keep changing their story on the reasons why we are there in the first place? but we need to think of what is in the best interests of the iraqi people, not ourselves, regardless of what we decide to do.
also, the situation is more and more becoming a dead horse. i don't think the american people are all that interested in iraq anymore. i don't think we are going to see a big, major change of policy, but the thing will slowly fizzle out over time.
we don't get to just pull out. thats the catch 22...we totally destroyed a country, its infrastructure, its civil institutions(no matter how corrupt) its ways to create income etc...we have to stay there. its our duty now. and this whole shitstorm is causing our economy to tank our dollar to wilt. also, the return to normalcy may be due to the sunnis realizing they can't fight us and win and would rather bide their time, get some territory back in baghdad and strengthen themselves to fight the shiites. and the shiites have called a truce against us as well. to gather strength for the civil war to follow. so maybe our staying there and preventing a bloodbath is worth the four thousand dollar a minute pricetag.
Is it if it is inevitable? Just playing devils adv, but curious.
I don't think we have the resources to keep peace indefinitely. I realize we destroyed a country and I think Bush/Cheney should be in jail for it, but I am not convinced that the US should carry the burden for decades (it certainly won't change in a few years - hate, fear and greed run deep in any society, it'll be there long after we leave).
I guess I am just waiting for some kind of answer from anyone. Nothing will be the right answer, so it is just about which sacrifices are made.
If the US goes into a rampant recession/depression, which it still could (anyone see Bear Stearns stock plunge?), we'll be killing our country for generations if we keep funneling cash into Iraq.
I thought this war was a mindlessly foolish blunder. It was a disastrous foreign policy move, and I protested prior to and during the first years of the war.
However, the US is now in a situation where we're the band-aid stanching a horrible wound (that we caused.) If we pull out now, that wound will begin to hemorrhage and consume the whole middle east.
Geopolitically, I think it's short sighted to simply pull out with no plan or strategy for how Iraq will get on its feet. I foresee—and think it's wise to consider—that the US will have a strong diplomatic, if not military presence there for years to come.
The truth is that the surge, stupid as it seemed at the beginning, actually improved things slightly. Now we need to think in terms of strengthening the Kurdish region and supporting its independence, while strengthening Iraq's institutions that we so take for granted in this country: judicial, martial, and democratic systems. We can't simply abandon them.
Here's a hypothetical: what if pulling out would save the lives of 2,000 American soldiers but might result in internecine war that would cause the deaths of 50,000 or more Iraqis, as well as destabilizing the region? Then is pulling out the right thing to do?
I go back and forth on this issue. Yes, I'd love to see us out of the region and focusing on problems at home. But I wouldn't want Iraq to dissolve into an even more murderous and anarchic situation than it's already in.
we [americans] have to get off the big stick policy for geopolitical making. you can no longer go around the world and beat the crap out of folks and in the same breath state thats democracy. i am a simple person.
we shouldnt be there - we f'd up - its not about loss of american lives at this point -
It's just a no win situation, for us, for Iraq, for the world. I agree we can't just pull out, but if you think of it like a plunging stock - you can hold on and pray it all turns around, but the odds are you'll just keep losing and losing more and more.
I don't think there will ever be a easy time to withdraw. I just wish that someone would hold Bush/Cheney and the complete entourage from the first B admin, when they planned the invasion, accountable.
I think we are f'd either way. It just comes down to where you think that selling point should be.
I don't have an answer or a suggestion, besides stick those punks that started this in jail, or at least wipe them out financially.
One part of me thinks that if a regional war occurred in the middle east, it would redraw the map in unexpected ways.
It's sort of like punctuated equilibrium: history chugs along, relatively stable, then suddenly some monumental thing happens (the US going into and then pulling out of Iraq, for instance) everything shifts in radical ways, then stabilizes again.
The arrangement in the middle east now isn't great. A big regional war would reorganize everything. Could be good, could be bad.
But the question is: whatever happens in the middle east in the next 20 years, should the US be involved?
And: does the world community (with the US as its leader) have an obligation to prevent humanitarian disasters? Which our pulling out of Iraq would likely create.
Who here is arguing that the Iraq war is a good thing, necessary, or a net positive? If you read back through the posts, I think the posters were universally against the war, and thought it was a gross misjudgment.
The question is, what to do now that we're there? Do we stay and try to create some stability for the region? Or pull out and risk chaos and a potential humanitarian disaster?
Sorry i wasn't implying that anyone on this post thinks it is a positive..
It was just what was on my mind..
Besides which, end of the day we should be worried about all the problems (domestic) facing America.. Not whether or not the various factions will go at it if we leave.
Of course they will. The only reason the Sons of Iraq (aka the Awakening) aren't attacking us know is cause we are payign them millions a month to "b eon our side"..
I was concerned for awhile about the fallout if we left, however (given the current state of the economy) and all the othe rmore pressign issues facing our country, i would argue that we cannot afford to stay in Iraq another minute. It is a huge drain on us economically and just as importantly we should be focusing our soldiers and military efforts in Afghanistan. We can't really do both effectively....
Besides which i doubt Iran or Saudia Arabia would allow Iraq to become a failed state. Sure we might not control it, but these and other regional powers would step in..The mess would be on their doorstep not ours...
since oil is hitting all time highs anyway maybe we should pull out, then after all hell breaks loose we can trade oil for protection. really when you think about it its not a bad idea.
orhan may be the only one qualified to judge the situation, being from turkey. and if he's right, inevitably we'll go back anyway, to help turkey fight the kurds, and to help saudi fight iran. this would be a mess. we would all have to go.
main thing is unstabilizing israel. and the situaition having a nuclear element. don't forget syrian position and strength. with latest russian arms and rockets.
there goes the opera houses and fantasy of dubai, just like that...
if iran shows any interest or kurds declare seperate state, turks would be in kerkuk.
and of course saudi-arabia and kuwait in the south... plus the iraqi factions themselves getting into action. really messy... and this only the local side of things... think about china, russia, europe getting involved when oil is at stake.
very very volatile situation. saddam was way more containable. this is where the adminitration's mistake was on top of the oil greed. the world is upset at US because we took a relatively containable situation and made it an international breaking point. and now talking about getting out. we have no longer credibility at world affairs.
when we get out of iraq, we will have no authority left other than a ruined diplomatic core and an impression of a beatable force. and +,- 7000-8000 dead youth, and twice as much amputeed veterans and three times as much mentally disturbed ex marines, a lot of them homeless.
what if pulling out would save the lives of 2,000 American soldiers but might result in internecine war that would cause the deaths of 50,000 or more Iraqis
My devils advocate line is, how many additional Iraqi's would've died at the hands of Saddam had he never been removed? Truth of the matter is the Iraqi people drew the short end of the stick a long time ago...long before 2003.
But, what do you say to those 2,000 American's that would hypothetically give their lives? Granted in many ways war is asking a soldier to give his life to save another life. Are you volunteering to be that person? Would you give your life to save 20 Iraqi lives? Betcha the military would have even a tougher time recruiting if that's what they sold, instead of college tuition. Your average soldier may care about the Iraqi people, but not more than his own life. I would expect the same of any solider from any nation.
If the concensus is that we have failed in iraq and there's no hope of success we should leave immediately. However, *if* there's something of tangible value to be gained from an occupation, by all means stay. Just be straightforward and honest to the troops stationed there. Tell them, "you're here to prevent an all out middle east shit storm...because we get over 20% of our oil from here that fuels suburbia back home." Again, I think that line would be trouble for military recruiters. Thus, I say just bring them home and let the chips fall as they may.
i think a lot of the debate coming from our govt right now stems from the generation that is in control, the vietnam generation. we have hawks and doves running for president. unfortunately for the conservatives and liberals, this war has nothing at all to do with vietnam, but their opinions can't be shaped by anything other than the vietnam experience.
I like that the protesters in whashington are trying to barricade the offices of lobbiest for war profiteers and oil companies. can they make that permanent?
perhaps your to young to understand. if we didnt protest viet nam we would still be there - your buying into bush / war capitalist rhetoric. keep the war machine going i say!
if rosa parks didnt resist getting up from her seat on the bus for a white person where would we be? to believe the only solution to end a crisis in the middle east is to continue fighting is wrong. this policy is well beyond iraq and bush. the policy hasnt worked for over 50 years. time for a new direction. talking perhaps. no one is saying leave tomorrow first train out -
...funny how this ideas keep coming around. if we get out now, a wider conflict or the commies will take over SE Asia....bullshit. Patrick you're wrong. we will be out soon, but responsibly. Iraq is a waste of life and money - my money, and my economic future.
success? we are succeeding? i guess news this week of Al Sadr only proves who's holding the cards over there in Iraq...
so are you saying we are bound to our mistake, so let's deepen the divisions? our mistake was going in in the first place, so lets make it all or nothing, because something MIGHT happen?
it is interesting, that based on numerous examples of failed american policies, we can now be "sure" that the one of sustained presence will prevent mayhem.
maybe. maybe the alternative is too scary to consider. but actually, i think that is the real problem. no one has really considered what withdrawal might mean. instead we get tragic scenarios as being the only possible consequence of withdrawal.
a significant number of Iraqis do believe, with many justifications, that in fact it IS the continued american presence that is fueling the instability. if the americans left immediately, yes, there might be a large renewal of violence. but we don't know that for sure. but then it would become incumbent upon the Iraqi people to sort it out.
the recent transition of many smaller Sunni militias to side with the americans and to help out in flushing out Al Qeida fighters is a nationalist response to a situation they inherited because of the US invasion. what is to say this same self-preservationist tendency would not emerge should the americans leave? why are we so sure that our american logic is right, and not the logic of those who long for the americans to leave. our previous logic for invasion was faulty. our previous logic for running the country was faulty. our previous logic for forming the government was faulty. why does america continue the arrogance that only its analysis and derived solutions are correct and worthy of implementation?
would it become more "tribal"? maybe. would it possibly fracture into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd sectors? maybe. would this be a bad thing? maybe not.
the USA went a long way to helping with the break-up of Yugoslavia, which has been recently concluded with the independence of Kosovo. why can't we see the same thing happening in Iraq? after all, it only held together because of the strength and terror of Saddam. why does the USA continue to have the arrogance - backed by ignorance - to decide which sovereign nations should break up and which ones must stay together regardless of the consequences.
break up of iraq is very different with speculative petrolium deposits.
whatever you guys discuss here, you have to take this very very important fact considered.
nobody compromises when ethnic differences are coupled by economic difficulties and mismanagement.
i don't think a co-operative maturity exists in the region, where resources could be used justly for each community.
behind every ethnic division, exist economic problems which manifest as land, resource ownership rights, before even bifurcating to more complex issues.
also i forgot to mention water. which will be even greater issue when petroleum starts to deplete.
i am sorry to say this, but i lost my optimism for middle east a while ago, after seeing time after time that israelis and palestinians can't make peace to begin with.
the day we learn how to 'mediate justly' between the otherwise peaceful people, the day we solve at least half of world's ongoing wars and decrease the number of our enemies by at least that much.
in order to be able to do that, we have some internal changes, growing up and civil illuminations to accomplish first.
we have better conditions to accomplish that, than most places on earth.
we have to ask from our political contenders to provide that kind of vision and go to polls with that in mind.
all i hear is more and more "paternalism". that is to say that somehow only "we" can save them from themselves. that they are too immature to take care of their own needs. that "they" wouldn't be able to have their own government or not fall to the reign of a dictator, unless "we" set it up for them - in our own image.
treating whole sections and areas of the world as if they were badly-mannered children is exactly why americans can't seem to understand why their image of the world doesn't really exist. this constant interference when other people don't do what the USA wants them to do. this is nothing more than the USA deciding, that on a world scale, all regional conflicts and situations, are part of the american "national interest", and therefore justify intervention, invasion or manipulation.
the reference to Yugoslavia is that it points out the continuing hypocrisy on the formation of states. use force to allow for self-defined sectors to become "independent", or use force to keep an artificial entity intact. interesting that the choice is always in the hands of the invader or the one with the power to enforce "national interests", no matter how far from home.
"You can't have the leading global marketplace and technology without the responsibilities of empire..."
does "responsibilities of empire" imply hypocrisy and blind self-interest? the problem seems to be the sense that all the high-minded stances that the USA is good at lecturing others on, do not really apply to the USA. on the basis of maintaining an 'economic imperialism', the USA is good at reneging on treaties, policies, human rights, environmental priorities and multi-lateral initiatives.
i don't know that the EU (and other Unions or alliances) need to be "rallied". they do need to be LISTENED to and treated as equals - not just as subservient errand-runners and captive markets. why should others shoulder a global burden to which they are not party to its control or determination? GW Bush is not the first American in power to explicitly (or more often, implicitly) declare that the direction of the world will be defined through american self-interests and that it's "my way or the highway". maybe imperialistically effective, but eventually self-defeating.
i am reminded of the air america arguement that was celebrated prior to the war -- pottery barn argument with regard to the iraq war -- if you break it you must fix it [or buy it]
Five Years After the Invasion, Demonstrate for Troops Out! Saturday 15 March 2008
Post your local protest here!
I'll be here in London if anyone is interested! Noon - Trafalgar Square
15 March Protest
Five years after the invasion of Iraq the world has become much more dangerous and volatile. Latest estimates suggest as many as one million have died violent deaths as a result of the occupation of Iraq. The country's infrastructure and civil society are in shreds. Brown has promised British withdrawals but there are still 5,000 British soldiers in Iraq.
Despite talk of a change of attitude to the Bush's wars, Brown is Bush's key partner in NATO's escalation in Afghanistan, and that hidden war is fast becoming a disaster mirroring that in Iraq. Meanwhile the political chaos in Pakistan is partly a product of the War on Terror and risks further military interventions. The Stop the War Coalition has joined with CND in calling a demonstration to mark the fifth anniversary of the invasion in London on Saturday March 15.
The demonstration will coincide with World Against War marches around the world agreed at the International Peace Conference in London on December 1st. It will be calling for all foreign troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and demanding there is no attack on Iran. Stop the War is asking all groups to start mobilising for this demonstration now. More details and a leaflet will be available shortly.
Demo details
The demo will assemble for a rally in Trafalgar Square, march down Whitehall, cross the river and return for final speeches in Parliament Square, so surrounding parliament.
____________________________________________
The destruction of Iraq continues; its people killed amidst bombings and atrocities, a million or more dead, many more than two million driven from their homes, the social and economic infrastructure shattered. In Afghanistan the US military is spending $65,000 a minute and there are four times as many air strikes than in Iraq.
The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in untold suffering for the people of these countries. Yet British troops remain in both countries.
The International Peace Conference we organised in London in December agreed to hold anti-war demonstrations across the world in March 2008. The UK demonstration takes place in London on 15 March. I hope you will join me there.
This requires many thousands of pounds for national and international co-ordination; running costs for the national office, printing of leaflets and posters, travel costs and much else.
Stop the War is wholly dependent on donations, money-raising events, affiliation fees from individuals, peace groups, trade unions and other organizations. Unfortunately this is never enough.
very bad war lasted longer than all other wars , cost more, and what has been achieved? nothing, a less stable more hostile people who have their oil stolen by the corporations who created the war based on lies.
like the last scene of Charlie Wilson's war, where he asks for money for the schools in Afghanistan and the committee laughs at him
i just hope we get Bush and his cronies before the Hauge
you two and your peers are mis-informed sheep. get your facts straight, losers.
Sure, it cost more, but casualties on all sides have been dramatically less - by anyone's count.
So lets leave now, while first-world armies, the strongest in the history of the world, have been keeping an un-easy peace. let's leave now and damn the iraqi people to the perpetual hell of fighting to fill the power vacuum.
get a sense of history, twits!
i used to protest the war...but then my financial advisor informed me that ny portfolio is heavy in defense stocks and that the war was actually good for me...i smile much more these days
thanks for reinforcing why i left the states.
Does the fact that the North Sea oil fields are in decline and that the UK is now a net oil importer mean anything to the people in London?
Granted, the UK isn't as wasteful with oil as the USA, but I've been there before. I've sat in traffic jams on the M25 the M3, M4... I know people that pay the ~ $8/gallon for petrol because taking the train is more expensive yet. And living in central London is prohibitively expensive. Outside of the tourist central cities of the UK and Europe there are big box retailers and strip malls just like in N. America. There is auto centric sprawl. I've seen it with my own two eyes. I know how dependant you are on oil supply, just like America.
In many ways the UK is even more vulnerable to oil supply than the USA because outside of their own production they have to depend on hostile areas like the Middle East or an increasingly powerful Russia. They don't have a Canada next door, or opportunities for expanding their own production like the US with Alaska and the Pacific & Atlantic outer shelf.
I only bring up OIL because 5 years ago all the protests were No War for Oil. Fact is, those protestors aren't geologists. They know very little about oil. From the downstream side and it's massive impact on the industralized world to the upstream side and just how difficult it is to find the stuff and bring it to market.
I've never fallen for the line that this war is about WMD's. It's about oil, plain and simple. But...I firmly believe that if the masses knew as much about oil that your average petroleum geologist knows nobody would be protesting this weekend.
and puddles...I've made even more $$$ by investing in energy. The US military is the largest user of it in the world.
Sure, great idea. Let's protest and get the troops out....
...because the proper thing to do is leave a country in a state that begs for total anarchy. If we leave, the smaller factions will take over that place and as they fight for control, thousands of regular everyday citizens will lose their lives in the crossfire and the US will ultimately be to blame.
Not going in their in the first place would have been one thing but we can't turn back time. Leaving irresponsibly is another, we can control that.
saturday protests accompish nothing, end of the week and will miss the press... especially w/ congress adjourning for their 2 week spring recess...
thank you fellow republicans
Is there one in NYC?
I remember marching before Bush declared war-it was insanely cold and even though we were all against the war, we all knew that there was nothing we could do to prevent it and it was going to happen just because Bush and Cheney wanted it to. And the barricades were annoying-we had to go way up through the Upper East Side and then back down just to reach the UN. At least a lot of people were there.
I wonder if the only way to end wars now is for them to go really badly after they begin.
while this whole war was tremendous tactical and strategic cluster fuck, i don't see the world as anymore dangerous than in the past. shit the usa and ussr had tens of thousands of nukes pointed at each other for decades. that was much scarier than alqaida...
don't buy gas this tuesday!
It's going to take a lot more than a protest to end this war.
actually vado, I'd gladly go back to the cold war days when it was the USA vs. USSR and the relative peace of MAD. I can trust that far more than a place like Pakistan having nukes. Anyone who has seen the news knows that place isn't exactly stable.
and before TED can call me a republican again, I would like to state I support an immediate withdraw of US troops...from Iraq...from Afghanistan...from the Balkans...from S. Korea...for Europe...etc.
I'm 100% against the USA being the policeman of the world. But, I do think the world would be in for one heck of a shitstorm if we did that. I just don't care.
i don't think the US should be policing the world. how little we knew about iraq is reason enough for me. but there is a difference for me in the case of europe, korea, and japan. if they really wanted us to leave, we would leave. we withdrew from the phillipines, from panama. the world also twisted our arm to intervene in liberia, and because of that they have at least begun some semblance of a path to normalcy. it isn't okay to be the self-imposed policeman, but some people do depend on us for other reasons. if we are asked to go, it is different. no one asked for us to go into iraq, save for maybe this chalabi character. but there is a difference between being a self-styled policeman, who is more likely to be perceived as a bully by less powerful nations, and turning your back on the world entirely, even when it needs you.
protesting does raise awareness - dont just dis it - i bussed to dc 6 weekends prior to the war and marched. more people just have to do it - le boss is right - we have no right in controlling the world - it doesnt matter if you want troops home or not - its supporting the people of irag who drew the shorter stick. to say the world will fall apart if we leave is BS -- 'some semblance of a path to normalcy' -- right on bro!
no takers? i dont own war stock!
Does anyone actually think that having the troops there for what 5 years? 10? 20? Will really make a difference?
I don't. I think Iraq will turn into a chaos until there is another dictator brutally running the show. I hope I am way wrong, but I just see too many different agendas there. Too many people willing to die (or kill) for what they want.
As far as the oil goes, I don't see how any of it benefits the US. Maybe it benefits Halliburton, but we all see oil prices in record territory.
This is a complete no win situation, with the exception of Cheney, Halliburton and other corps profiting from the war.
I still find it disturbing that the world, us citizens, the democrats, etc., have all let them get away with it. This will be looked down on as the largest conspiracy of the century, but no one will ever go to jail or be convicted.
actually the 'some semblance of a path to normalcy' was a reference to when american troops did intervene with positive results. my point wasn't to take a position either way on iraq specifically in so much as to address aquapura's remarks about isolationism, and the difference between imperialism and engaging with the world in a positive way.
in terms of iraq, i'm pretty nihlistic about the whole thing at this point. personally, i don't think we should have gone in their in the first place. i think we should have sent 130,000 troops to afghanistan, although all the mistakes, lies, and misleading don't change the current situation. but i am genuinely concerned about the iraqi people, who as TED notes are the ones at the short end of the stick. i don't know whether it is better for us to pull out or not. i hear personal reports from marines and soldiers i know, who say the news reports are skewed and that they are really the ones who are doing good over there, and of course there is the news itself. but i really can't gauge who is more biased, because i don't know any iraqis. i wish i could go there and see it for myself, but i don't want to go into the military right now. i tend to agree with trace's remark that iraq will end up being run by another dictator, either way. my prediction is that we will pull out of iraq in two years, regardless of who is president, and leave about 10,000 troops behind in some base somewhere to fight al-qaeda.
personally the best reason i can come up with from leaving iraq is, how long do you keep listening to people who keep changing their story on the reasons why we are there in the first place? but we need to think of what is in the best interests of the iraqi people, not ourselves, regardless of what we decide to do.
also, the situation is more and more becoming a dead horse. i don't think the american people are all that interested in iraq anymore. i don't think we are going to see a big, major change of policy, but the thing will slowly fizzle out over time.
we don't get to just pull out. thats the catch 22...we totally destroyed a country, its infrastructure, its civil institutions(no matter how corrupt) its ways to create income etc...we have to stay there. its our duty now. and this whole shitstorm is causing our economy to tank our dollar to wilt. also, the return to normalcy may be due to the sunnis realizing they can't fight us and win and would rather bide their time, get some territory back in baghdad and strengthen themselves to fight the shiites. and the shiites have called a truce against us as well. to gather strength for the civil war to follow. so maybe our staying there and preventing a bloodbath is worth the four thousand dollar a minute pricetag.
Is it if it is inevitable? Just playing devils adv, but curious.
I don't think we have the resources to keep peace indefinitely. I realize we destroyed a country and I think Bush/Cheney should be in jail for it, but I am not convinced that the US should carry the burden for decades (it certainly won't change in a few years - hate, fear and greed run deep in any society, it'll be there long after we leave).
I guess I am just waiting for some kind of answer from anyone. Nothing will be the right answer, so it is just about which sacrifices are made.
If the US goes into a rampant recession/depression, which it still could (anyone see Bear Stearns stock plunge?), we'll be killing our country for generations if we keep funneling cash into Iraq.
Maybe I should just go buy some defense stocks.
I thought this war was a mindlessly foolish blunder. It was a disastrous foreign policy move, and I protested prior to and during the first years of the war.
However, the US is now in a situation where we're the band-aid stanching a horrible wound (that we caused.) If we pull out now, that wound will begin to hemorrhage and consume the whole middle east.
Geopolitically, I think it's short sighted to simply pull out with no plan or strategy for how Iraq will get on its feet. I foresee—and think it's wise to consider—that the US will have a strong diplomatic, if not military presence there for years to come.
The truth is that the surge, stupid as it seemed at the beginning, actually improved things slightly. Now we need to think in terms of strengthening the Kurdish region and supporting its independence, while strengthening Iraq's institutions that we so take for granted in this country: judicial, martial, and democratic systems. We can't simply abandon them.
Here's a hypothetical: what if pulling out would save the lives of 2,000 American soldiers but might result in internecine war that would cause the deaths of 50,000 or more Iraqis, as well as destabilizing the region? Then is pulling out the right thing to do?
I go back and forth on this issue. Yes, I'd love to see us out of the region and focusing on problems at home. But I wouldn't want Iraq to dissolve into an even more murderous and anarchic situation than it's already in.
we [americans] have to get off the big stick policy for geopolitical making. you can no longer go around the world and beat the crap out of folks and in the same breath state thats democracy. i am a simple person.
we shouldnt be there - we f'd up - its not about loss of american lives at this point -
It's just a no win situation, for us, for Iraq, for the world. I agree we can't just pull out, but if you think of it like a plunging stock - you can hold on and pray it all turns around, but the odds are you'll just keep losing and losing more and more.
I don't think there will ever be a easy time to withdraw. I just wish that someone would hold Bush/Cheney and the complete entourage from the first B admin, when they planned the invasion, accountable.
I think we are f'd either way. It just comes down to where you think that selling point should be.
I don't have an answer or a suggestion, besides stick those punks that started this in jail, or at least wipe them out financially.
if US gets out of iraq, there will be a big regional war. involving many countries.
that is what worries me.
seems the world is in big unwinnable problem in iraq. only way to guess right answer will be through hindsight. really not good place to be...
One part of me thinks that if a regional war occurred in the middle east, it would redraw the map in unexpected ways.
It's sort of like punctuated equilibrium: history chugs along, relatively stable, then suddenly some monumental thing happens (the US going into and then pulling out of Iraq, for instance) everything shifts in radical ways, then stabilizes again.
The arrangement in the middle east now isn't great. A big regional war would reorganize everything. Could be good, could be bad.
But the question is: whatever happens in the middle east in the next 20 years, should the US be involved?
And: does the world community (with the US as its leader) have an obligation to prevent humanitarian disasters? Which our pulling out of Iraq would likely create.
Longer than WW II people...
Are you really going to tell me invading Iraq was more important than fighting Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini ??
That Iraq was either necessary or a net positive for this country?
At least after WW II we became the global economic and military sole super power...
Who here is arguing that the Iraq war is a good thing, necessary, or a net positive? If you read back through the posts, I think the posters were universally against the war, and thought it was a gross misjudgment.
The question is, what to do now that we're there? Do we stay and try to create some stability for the region? Or pull out and risk chaos and a potential humanitarian disaster?
Farwest1...
Sorry i wasn't implying that anyone on this post thinks it is a positive..
It was just what was on my mind..
Besides which, end of the day we should be worried about all the problems (domestic) facing America.. Not whether or not the various factions will go at it if we leave.
Of course they will. The only reason the Sons of Iraq (aka the Awakening) aren't attacking us know is cause we are payign them millions a month to "b eon our side"..
I was concerned for awhile about the fallout if we left, however (given the current state of the economy) and all the othe rmore pressign issues facing our country, i would argue that we cannot afford to stay in Iraq another minute. It is a huge drain on us economically and just as importantly we should be focusing our soldiers and military efforts in Afghanistan. We can't really do both effectively....
Besides which i doubt Iran or Saudia Arabia would allow Iraq to become a failed state. Sure we might not control it, but these and other regional powers would step in..The mess would be on their doorstep not ours...
since oil is hitting all time highs anyway maybe we should pull out, then after all hell breaks loose we can trade oil for protection. really when you think about it its not a bad idea.
orhan may be the only one qualified to judge the situation, being from turkey. and if he's right, inevitably we'll go back anyway, to help turkey fight the kurds, and to help saudi fight iran. this would be a mess. we would all have to go.
china could get involved. think about it. china and russia backing iran, nato backing saudi arabia. the kurds fighting everybody. world war 3.
main thing is unstabilizing israel. and the situaition having a nuclear element. don't forget syrian position and strength. with latest russian arms and rockets.
there goes the opera houses and fantasy of dubai, just like that...
if iran shows any interest or kurds declare seperate state, turks would be in kerkuk.
and of course saudi-arabia and kuwait in the south... plus the iraqi factions themselves getting into action. really messy... and this only the local side of things... think about china, russia, europe getting involved when oil is at stake.
very very volatile situation. saddam was way more containable. this is where the adminitration's mistake was on top of the oil greed. the world is upset at US because we took a relatively containable situation and made it an international breaking point. and now talking about getting out. we have no longer credibility at world affairs.
when we get out of iraq, we will have no authority left other than a ruined diplomatic core and an impression of a beatable force. and +,- 7000-8000 dead youth, and twice as much amputeed veterans and three times as much mentally disturbed ex marines, a lot of them homeless.
oil at 15 dollars a gallon.
walking in arizona!
My devils advocate line is, how many additional Iraqi's would've died at the hands of Saddam had he never been removed? Truth of the matter is the Iraqi people drew the short end of the stick a long time ago...long before 2003.
But, what do you say to those 2,000 American's that would hypothetically give their lives? Granted in many ways war is asking a soldier to give his life to save another life. Are you volunteering to be that person? Would you give your life to save 20 Iraqi lives? Betcha the military would have even a tougher time recruiting if that's what they sold, instead of college tuition. Your average soldier may care about the Iraqi people, but not more than his own life. I would expect the same of any solider from any nation.
If the concensus is that we have failed in iraq and there's no hope of success we should leave immediately. However, *if* there's something of tangible value to be gained from an occupation, by all means stay. Just be straightforward and honest to the troops stationed there. Tell them, "you're here to prevent an all out middle east shit storm...because we get over 20% of our oil from here that fuels suburbia back home." Again, I think that line would be trouble for military recruiters. Thus, I say just bring them home and let the chips fall as they may.
i think a lot of the debate coming from our govt right now stems from the generation that is in control, the vietnam generation. we have hawks and doves running for president. unfortunately for the conservatives and liberals, this war has nothing at all to do with vietnam, but their opinions can't be shaped by anything other than the vietnam experience.
so Pres. Bushwack says
"Five years ago we rescued a country..."
lying sack of shit. The unmitigated gall.
I'd hate to see what he would have done to a country he wasn't trying to rescue...
I like that the protesters in whashington are trying to barricade the offices of lobbiest for war profiteers and oil companies. can they make that permanent?
perhaps your to young to understand. if we didnt protest viet nam we would still be there - your buying into bush / war capitalist rhetoric. keep the war machine going i say!
if rosa parks didnt resist getting up from her seat on the bus for a white person where would we be? to believe the only solution to end a crisis in the middle east is to continue fighting is wrong. this policy is well beyond iraq and bush. the policy hasnt worked for over 50 years. time for a new direction. talking perhaps. no one is saying leave tomorrow first train out -
...funny how this ideas keep coming around. if we get out now, a wider conflict or the commies will take over SE Asia....bullshit. Patrick you're wrong. we will be out soon, but responsibly. Iraq is a waste of life and money - my money, and my economic future.
success? we are succeeding? i guess news this week of Al Sadr only proves who's holding the cards over there in Iraq...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNhVbwmjixMs2NciVz_S_cCCgk2AD8VNBMO82
...ahhhh, here we go again, your brother's war is more important than my daddies war...boo-the fuck-hoo.
your answer is to stay, and that sir, is not only pathetic, but on the wrong side of what will be history.
the answer is like the movie Wargames; the answer is not to play the game.
so are you saying we are bound to our mistake, so let's deepen the divisions? our mistake was going in in the first place, so lets make it all or nothing, because something MIGHT happen?
it is interesting, that based on numerous examples of failed american policies, we can now be "sure" that the one of sustained presence will prevent mayhem.
maybe. maybe the alternative is too scary to consider. but actually, i think that is the real problem. no one has really considered what withdrawal might mean. instead we get tragic scenarios as being the only possible consequence of withdrawal.
a significant number of Iraqis do believe, with many justifications, that in fact it IS the continued american presence that is fueling the instability. if the americans left immediately, yes, there might be a large renewal of violence. but we don't know that for sure. but then it would become incumbent upon the Iraqi people to sort it out.
the recent transition of many smaller Sunni militias to side with the americans and to help out in flushing out Al Qeida fighters is a nationalist response to a situation they inherited because of the US invasion. what is to say this same self-preservationist tendency would not emerge should the americans leave? why are we so sure that our american logic is right, and not the logic of those who long for the americans to leave. our previous logic for invasion was faulty. our previous logic for running the country was faulty. our previous logic for forming the government was faulty. why does america continue the arrogance that only its analysis and derived solutions are correct and worthy of implementation?
would it become more "tribal"? maybe. would it possibly fracture into Sunni, Shiite, Kurd sectors? maybe. would this be a bad thing? maybe not.
the USA went a long way to helping with the break-up of Yugoslavia, which has been recently concluded with the independence of Kosovo. why can't we see the same thing happening in Iraq? after all, it only held together because of the strength and terror of Saddam. why does the USA continue to have the arrogance - backed by ignorance - to decide which sovereign nations should break up and which ones must stay together regardless of the consequences.
break up of iraq is very different with speculative petrolium deposits.
whatever you guys discuss here, you have to take this very very important fact considered.
nobody compromises when ethnic differences are coupled by economic difficulties and mismanagement.
i don't think a co-operative maturity exists in the region, where resources could be used justly for each community.
behind every ethnic division, exist economic problems which manifest as land, resource ownership rights, before even bifurcating to more complex issues.
also i forgot to mention water. which will be even greater issue when petroleum starts to deplete.
i am sorry to say this, but i lost my optimism for middle east a while ago, after seeing time after time that israelis and palestinians can't make peace to begin with.
the day we learn how to 'mediate justly' between the otherwise peaceful people, the day we solve at least half of world's ongoing wars and decrease the number of our enemies by at least that much.
in order to be able to do that, we have some internal changes, growing up and civil illuminations to accomplish first.
we have better conditions to accomplish that, than most places on earth.
we have to ask from our political contenders to provide that kind of vision and go to polls with that in mind.
all i hear is more and more "paternalism". that is to say that somehow only "we" can save them from themselves. that they are too immature to take care of their own needs. that "they" wouldn't be able to have their own government or not fall to the reign of a dictator, unless "we" set it up for them - in our own image.
treating whole sections and areas of the world as if they were badly-mannered children is exactly why americans can't seem to understand why their image of the world doesn't really exist. this constant interference when other people don't do what the USA wants them to do. this is nothing more than the USA deciding, that on a world scale, all regional conflicts and situations, are part of the american "national interest", and therefore justify intervention, invasion or manipulation.
the reference to Yugoslavia is that it points out the continuing hypocrisy on the formation of states. use force to allow for self-defined sectors to become "independent", or use force to keep an artificial entity intact. interesting that the choice is always in the hands of the invader or the one with the power to enforce "national interests", no matter how far from home.
"You can't have the leading global marketplace and technology without the responsibilities of empire..."
does "responsibilities of empire" imply hypocrisy and blind self-interest? the problem seems to be the sense that all the high-minded stances that the USA is good at lecturing others on, do not really apply to the USA. on the basis of maintaining an 'economic imperialism', the USA is good at reneging on treaties, policies, human rights, environmental priorities and multi-lateral initiatives.
i don't know that the EU (and other Unions or alliances) need to be "rallied". they do need to be LISTENED to and treated as equals - not just as subservient errand-runners and captive markets. why should others shoulder a global burden to which they are not party to its control or determination? GW Bush is not the first American in power to explicitly (or more often, implicitly) declare that the direction of the world will be defined through american self-interests and that it's "my way or the highway". maybe imperialistically effective, but eventually self-defeating.
i am reminded of the air america arguement that was celebrated prior to the war -- pottery barn argument with regard to the iraq war -- if you break it you must fix it [or buy it]
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.