Political Crossfire Forums

Jimz · Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 41

If Iraq is truly a sovereign nation-state with an independently elected government as the Bush Administration repeatedly trumpets, what creates the legal, moral, or ethical right of the United States to play any, let alone a leading role in the current decision-making process of the future of Iraq which could result in a political partitioning of the country? Please do not tell me it is our military presence. We are avowedly there, according to our leaders, only to assist the inept and corrupt Iraqi army and police; not to become the equivilent of the Iraqi army or its' government. We could leave tomorrow should we choose to do so. So, according to what authority, international or otherwise, does the U.S. have any say about Iraq's political future including the possible re-drawing of the map of its' internal boundries? Or, is it time to simply admit that the concept of Iraq being a sovereign entity is a sham?

ThotsNRamblins

Spider · Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject:

Um, sorry to say it, but military presence is what actually matters over there. Everything else is hot air.

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Jimz wrote: what creates the legal, moral, or ethical right of the United States to play any, let alone a leading role in the current decision-making process of the future of Iraq which could result in a political partitioning of the country? We installed it. It's our duty to make sure it works. The Iraqis were treated like sh1t by Saddams regime, while his people starved, he lived in the lap of luxury, our moral obligation is to make sur it doesn't happen to the Iraqi people again.

Melcar · Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:

We are the moral police, haven't you heard? :)
In all seriousness, regardless of whether you agree with the causes of the invasion, the fact is that we are there and need to finish what we started. If we simply leave not only would everything be for nothing, but our international prestige would be damaged greatly.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

Kamel, if that's really the reason you state we are there, then we have a handful of other countries which we are somehow obligated to overthrow the government in, and set up cooperative "democratic" puppet governments. DPRNK, Darfur, Congo (hell, just make it all of africa), Iran, Afghanistan (oops, forgot to mention the recent Taliban upsurge), etc.

I find your point to be a little moot, considering no oppressive regime is threatening them now..they are warring against each other, with us in the middle!

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

wyldejackyl wrote: Kamel, if that's really the reason you state we are there, then we have a handful of other countries which we are somehow obligated to overthrow the government in, and set up cooperative "democratic" puppet governments. DPRNK, Darfur, Congo (hell, just make it all of africa), Iran, Afghanistan (oops, forgot to mention the recent Taliban upsurge), etc.

I find your point to be a little moot, considering no oppressive regime is threatening them now..they are warring against each other, with us in the middle!

I never said that's the reason we're there, it's the reason we're still there. Besides, Afrika doesn't have anything to offer us. :?

A civil war wouldn't actually be a bad thing in the long run. Civil war would force the opposing parties to come to an agreement on something, and through that, it creates a unity.

no.1 · Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 84 Location: NJ

Or perhaps one side actually will kill everyone on the other side and then the war will be over... though they would just look for another war to fight elsewhere.

Kane · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Posts: 10353 Location: Bay Area, CA

no.1 wrote: Or perhaps one side actually will kill everyone on the other side and then the war will be over... though they would just look for another war to fight elsewhere.

Well...yeah. Persians vs. Arabs.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

In most regards, Iraq is a sovereign state; Baghdad was very critical of the US and Israel over the recent Lebanon crisis, for example - not the action of a puppet state. However, in matters of security, of course the US is going to enjoy considerable clout due to the presence of US forces in the country. That's the trade-off that Iraq, like any sovereign country, faces when it hosts considerable numbers of foreign troops for its own benefit. The US occupies a handful of military bases in the UK which are essentially US territory; the US is supposed to consult the UK over their use but the protocol is murky. Does that impinge on British sovereignty - possibly; has my country benefited from the presence of those US bases? Undoubtedly: better a few square hectares occupied by the USAF than London and Glasgow occupied by the USSR. IMO, it's the same deal in Iraq.