Originally posted by Runetang
We're talking a very small amount here, if any.
No all WMD’s where destroyed, I know this as I’ve met a few people who where in the Ba’th party at the time. Saddam ordered their destruction
because he was fed up with Iraqis starving; he hated Iraq being poor when it (and him) could be so much richer which is good for his regime (like
pre-1991 when Iraqis had free first-world style health care, and education, university subsidies, subsidised food, and petrol too ).
He long wanted peace between himself and the U.S like they had before the invasion of Kuwait because we have common enemies (Muslim fundamentalists
and Iran), and that would be in Iraq’s interests.
The US knew it but is a good country led by evil men, they didn’t want someone in charge who would try to spread Ba’thist ideology abroad, or
threaten Israel (even hypothetically), they wanted to privatise Iraq’s state run industries and open them up to foreign investment (something they
did though most business have collapsed due to the security situation), they wanted to let Israel get its hands on Iraqi water by destroying the dams
Saddam built that drained out the Marsh Arabs, and they wanted a democracy because that’s how they think things should be. (Even though well over
50% of Iraqis agree with stoning women to death, and had only be prevented by Saddam’s Iraq was like most of the Mid East a dictatorship.
A true moderate in the prime minister's seat, even a Sunni moderate, or a Kurd, would be the way. Or from some other respected minority
branch of Islam or something.
And what makes you think one will get elected?
When: Maliki is unpopular because he won’t order U.S troops out now, and he won’t do that because if he did, he and most people who’ve taken
part in this Iraqi government would either successfully flee the country, or be strong up by the nearest lamp post. When he is unpopular because he
wants to continue forcing Iraqis into being one state rather than going their separate ways, because he isn’t pro-Iran style Islam enough, women
aren’t stoned to death for the most serious religious crimes.
What are you on about?
So once a better PM is in place, I'd be for the phased withdrawl of our troops to pressure the Iraqis to step up because as many of us know
from personal experiences, people don't always tend to do things until they absolutely have to or are forced to and that includes people even
Iraqis are a tribal society with loyalties to the tribe (because (like it or not) that’s how you stay alive in Iraq).
The tribes are only interested in defending their people of Iraq, they have almost no interest in defending people who are not in their sect. Why?
Because there’s lot’s of hatred
between different sects. Why?
Ever since the fall of Saddam Muslim fundamentalists have felt far more free to try, to forcefully impose their version of Islam on people who don’t
follow it. This has created resentment, retaliation, and ultimately war because every tribe has a duty to defend its own members (often even if
they’re (morally) in the wrong).
Iraqis already have more than enough motivation to fight, and that’s to fight (and retaliate) against any group who tred’s on their turf. This is
why Iraq is in a state of never ending civil war.
There is too much hatred to unite Iraq, even if on the higher level of politics a peace was established between different leaders, it may only be a
matter of days before a few carefully placed car bombs by bigots would destroy it, for everyone else, which by the way is what a minority of some
Islamic bigots want.
Yes we are killing the brave Sunni resistance who despite their tacky weapons- outdated equipment, have continuously resisted our occupation for
trying to prop-up a Malki government (interested in allowing closet genocide against the Sunnis).
This is very nice of us, we…
1. Kicked out their secular dictator, who before sanctions brought wealth to Iraq, who even during them, maintained social security, law and order and
a government closed to Muslim fundamentalists (so successfully at war with them they caused hardly any trouble to anyone).
2. Imposed a guy we knew their enemies (pro-stoning to death Shiites; the majority of Iraq) would elect. Who hates Sunnis and accidentally on purpose
allows Iraqi government to spent on death squads targeting Sunnis.
3. This causes Sunnis resistance to intensify resistance against the Maliki government, which is then destroyed by the western occupation, because it
happens to oppose us for supporting the Maliki government.
So yes a bunch of Sunni fighters are about to get killed.
But so what?
At least these are the people who are mostly likely
to oppose greater ties with Iran when we’re gone
, who are most likely to be able
to produce a secular dictator, instead of the other Muqtada al-Sadr style dictator the Shiite people of Iraq are most likely to elect. At least these
brave Sunnis are the sorts of men who will wilfully oppose the fundamentalists forms Islam, fight tribalism, and fight for a secular Ba’thist
version of Iraq, in other words they’re the only ones capable of bringing Iraq close to the riches it enjoyed pre-1991.
Don’t you see that the current Iraqi government (pro-west though it is) can’t last without the occupation, because the Iraqi
people hate it is for being too pro-us. Surely is definitely the case when it’s the absence of declaring Shiire Law, Iraq a strong ally of Iran,
open-overt support for genocide against the Sunni, and a commitment to splitting the rest of Iraq up, as well as kicking us out; that has held Malikis
government support up.
Therefore Maliki is only a stepping stone government for one that will make the Iranian government seem pro-west in comparison.
So when we leave Iraq we will need the Sunni people (we’re fighting today) to set up a different dictatorship to what the Shiites want. This
dictatorship will be almost identical to the Saddam one; because if it isn’t we can take great discomfort in the fact that it will be even more
awfully like Iran’s (that after all is what those war impoverished Shiite seek).
In effect by taking on the Sunni we have effectively sided with the Shiite enemy.
This has always been the “choice” that’s confronted us (as the Iraqi psychic itself hasn’t changed). Therefore not only was the Iraq war
mistake, but it was an attack against exactly the sort of government our interests, would best have in Middle East. Think about this:
Militarily weak, but anti Iran, and anti fundamentalist Islam, pro capitalism, with uses of socialism only
to keep control, and balances in the
economy right (something Britain and America along with almost every other country also do).