Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is the basis for the premise that the U.S. is beholden to occupy Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:02 PM
Original message
What is the basis for the premise that the U.S. is beholden to occupy Iraq
Edited on Sun Jan-14-07 12:09 PM by ProSense
even though an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want U.S. troops out of their country?


The war was based on a lie, there were war crimes committed, the Bush admin destroyed Iraq for no other reason than to steal its oil and kill its leader, and now an overwhelming majority of Iraqis are demanding that Americans leave.

The only thing keeping U.S. combat troops in Iraq is Bush's arrogance.




Edited to clarify: combat troops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nolies32fouettes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:06 PM
Original message
the premise is based on humanitarianism...the idea that
"the least we owe them is to set things straight..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. The problem is
combat troops fighting the insurgency has nothing to do with humanitarianism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. Uh no that is not what they are saying and it is bullshit anyway.,
The claim they are making is that if we leave it will be a disaster for us in our Global Warnterra.

For example, the first paragraph of Mr. Stinky's bad speech the other night:

"Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror."

This is the leading paragraph. The Iraqi people don't figure into the primary justifications for our continued occupation of Iraq at all.

We cannot set things straight. Four years later that is manifestly obvious. As others have pointed out, we are the bull in the china shop. Insisting that the bull continue to stay in the shop until things are set straight is clearly a lie. Obviously the owner of the bull that put it in the china shop has other motives for keeping the bull there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. our occupation is the opposite of humanitarianism
and prevents any chance of actual humanitarianism taking place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Also, what is the basis of everyone saying, 'if we don't fight them over
there, we'll be fighting them here." That's a dumb meme that's gotten a lot of mileage without anything much to back it up. The Iraqis did not attack the US; I wish that would be pointed out more often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yep. "They hate us for our freedom" is another one that's just as
stupid and meaningless. Like "Work makes free".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oil. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Pottery barn
Powell wasn't kidding. We broke it, we bought it. I'm for withdrawl but I think we have to be honest that there will be some very, very severe consequences from leaving. Just not as severe as the consequences from staying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Fixing it has nothing to do with staying there
in the middle of their civil war and as a magnet for anti-American violence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. That's for sure. I don't think it is possible to predict exactly what they will be,
but the consequences for this clusterphuk will be horrendous and may well outlive our country. I honestly cannot think of another debacle we have engaged in, and there have been many, that equals the potential disaster this can degenerate into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. As the owner of The Pottery Barn noted, that is bullshit.
If you break it you might offer to pay for it, but you do not own it and you most certainly do not own the store and if you are continuing to break things you should at least leave and write them a damn check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Warren, you just gave me a good new meme
you most certainly do not own the store and if you are continuing to break things you should at least leave and write them a damn check

I stand corrected, and you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I want to pull my hair out everytime I hear that excuse.
Only I don't have any hair left to pull out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. And yet
When (not if) we leave, we will leave a country ready for Iran and Al Qaeda to fight over it (Iran will win pretty easily).

I mention the costs of withdrawing not to be a Cassandra but to try to remind the country how severely this war has compromised our security (sorry; I'm a military guy; that's how I think) and how much of our actions in the future will need to be conditioned on limiting the damage that will happen this year, next year, or 10 years from now, whenever we end up leaving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Oh I agree we have destabilized the entire region.
And most assuredly THAT WAS THE PLAN ALL ALONG. It is so sick and so criminal. We are monsters in the world right now, as bad as al qaeda, perhaps even worse, and we have not even started to come to grips with that simple fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Whie man's burden"
The "we know what's best for them" syndrome.

So we continue to blithely ignore what the Iraqis want. And wonder why they hate us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. The Almighty divined that W would be a conquering war president who decides all
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Because if we leave than Syria and Iran will have influence
over Iraq , the Israeli's and Saudi's don't want that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. No basis other than...
... a delusional loser leader who cannot accept that he has failed and there is nothing he can do about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
18. Very good question! When is the rule of law going to be restored HERE?
Assessing Iraq's situation is none of our business. Choosing to continue the occupation of Iraq is not our rightful decision. Invading Iraq and slaughtering one hundred thousand innocent people, in the initial bombing alone--and then torturing people and killing more--is a major war crime of Hitlerian proportions. What right do we have to continue that crime and to profit from it, by writing our puppet government's giveaway of their oil fields to Exxon-Mobile & Co? By "we," of course, I mean the Bush Junta. We, the American people, have nothing to say about it.

Where is the rule of law here at home?

This has been my question all along--from before the invasion, when 56% of the American people opposed this war (Feb. '03). What right does George Bush have to do any of this? Congress CANNOT just give away its power to declare war. The Iraq War Resolution itself was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There was no vote in Congress to declare war on Iraq. Thus we are NOT at war--and everything that has happened since has been egregiously ILLEGAL. The Bush Junta has as much right to BE in Iraq, and to be making decisions about Iraq, as Hitler did in France.

I'm with you, ProSense. We need to return to FIRST PRINCIPLES: The Constitution. The Geneva Conventions. The rule of law.


-----------------------

This horrendous mess has a history that goes way back to the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution in 1964, by which LBJ dramatically escalated the war on Vietnam. LBJ lied to Congress that the North Vietnamese had fired on US ships. The CIA had been in the country since 1954--when Eisenhower prevented UN-sponsored elections that Ho Chi Minh would have won--and had created a highly corrupt artificial entity called "South Vietnam." The US crept into Vietnam---an act that JFK was in the process of trying to undo, when he was assassinated--on the false premise of "defending" an ally that we had created. This fragment of legitimacy gave the War Profiteers a pinhold through which to eventually push hundreds of thousands of US troops and vast military expenditures. They MANUFACTURED an incident out of whole cloth--a provocation by the "North Vietnamese," the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, in a country that did not belong to us, and where we should not have been--and sold that to Congress as justification for retaliating. Thence to major warfare and the slaughter of upwards of two million people!

Congress never declared war on Vietnam either. Because a declaration of war requires A TRUE ACT OF WAR against the US or its REAL allies. Otherwise there is no justification for it. "North Vietnam" did not attack us. Nor was it engaged in hostilities with any true ally of ours. Vietnam was in the midst of a civil war instigated by the CIA! And Vietnam furthermore posed no danger to us whatsoever. In fact, Ho Chi Minh offered to be our only ally in the communist world. And Vietnam was a country that had been fighting off invaders (mostly the Chinese) for 5,000 years. They are ferociously committed to their independence. And Ho Chi Minh cited this in his letters to our government--he quoted the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson!

But the War Profiteers wanted war. If any of this had become known to the American people--say, in debates in Congress on a declaration of war against Vietnam--war would be difficult to manufacture. So, while LBJ was selling himself to the American people as the "peace candidate" in the 1964 election, the sneaky "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution was shoved through Congress, with only 2 dissenting votes.

The Iraq War Resolution had 125 dissenting votes in the Anthrax Congress--God bless those dissenting and courageous patriots! But it was very similar to the "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution in that, 1) it was based on baldfaced lies; and 2) was NOT accompanied by a declaration of war, and, instead, unconstitutionally gave that decision away to the Executive.

We need to go back to FIRST PRINCIPLES starting then: in 1964. And we need to never, never let this happen again. Now we have the Bush Junta attacking Somalia and threatening to attack Iran, with no authorization whatsoever. This has gone way out of control. We need to restore Constitutional government. Jefferson, Madison & Co. designed the Constitution to PREVENT this very thing--war at the option of the executive. We have allowed the erosion of that "balance of power" protection--and we need to reverse course, and stop that erosion, before we find ourselves in WW III, led by a lunatic and his greedy cabal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
20. MLK had the answer:
MLK: A Time to Break Silence (posted at Johnkerry.com)

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC