It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I think we shouldn't withdraw troops, and should stay in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Why I think we shouldn't withdraw troops, and should stay in Iraq.

I'm sure to many this will be a controversial idea, in fact, just a few weeks ago, I would have thought that myself. But after reading some history books, I've changed my mind.

I'm not really here to discuss the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, personally I think it was waged using illigitimate means, such as lying about data.

But now that we are in, we have to do it properly. Since the evidence turned out to be false, people have fallen back to the line of "Freeing Iraq", and getting rid of a bad dictator (Of course overlooking the fact that there are countries that need freeing even more), but I have to question how effective this will be if we only stay a couple of years.

If we look back at the history of prior empires, many of them had similar ideas of spreading their ideology in this manner, but some were more successful than others.

Looking at the British empire, for a time they were quite successful in their transformation of the countries they invaded. Of course over time they had failures, and in the end they collapsed, but they were much more successful than the USA has been in it's attempts, and some of there efforts really made a long term difference to the countries they occupied.

Comparing the two empires, an important difference in technique is the way the British didn't just shake things up for a couple of years, then run out. They stayed the course, often for decades, and also many Britons settled in the country. It was this committment of time, resources and people, that I believe made the difference.

If we look at the USA's interventions, South America, Asia and the Middle east mostly, almost all of them have been failures in this regard, the USA shook up the power system in the country, then tended to back out as quickly as possible. Mostly those countries then slipped back into chaos very quickly, and often just ended up in more chaos.

If we are going to do this, (by we I mean USA/UK/etc), I think we need to do it properly, and show that level of commitment that empires of old showed, even though many failed in the end, often this was because they overstretched. I still think they were more successful than the USA has been so far.

I have to credit and recommend Niall Fergusons works, his books have really opened my eyes, and made me have this change of heart.

I don't like invading countries as much as the next man, but sometimes I think it really is necessary in order to be good neighbours in the world. If your next door neighbour was beating his wife, you'd call the cops, and they'd kick the door in. Well, sometimes we need to do that on a global scale.




posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 

See what you don't understand is the USA actually won every single one of those battles. It's just like pushing drugs in the streets.....you're a kingpin who's greedy and needs more money, so what do you do? You go into the other kingpins territories who have the resources and contacts you need , you leave moles and spies, you bully them a little bit and you EXTORT the hell out of them....the key is, you don't need to actually take the territory in order to have what you want



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAbstract
reply to post by RubberBaron
 

See what you don't understand is the USA actually won every single one of those battles. It's just like pushing drugs in the streets.....you're a kingpin who's greedy and needs more money, so what do you do? You go into the other kingpins territories who have the resources and contacts you need , you leave moles and spies, you bully them a little bit and you EXTORT the hell out of them....the key is, you don't need to actually take the territory in order to have what you want


No, I think you misunderstand, in military measures, they may well have 'won the war', but almost always they abandoned too soon, so the country fell apart again, and sometimes it got worse because the USA had left a power vacuum and someone even worse took over. So while they won in military terms, they lost in their overall plan of regime change for the better/spreading democracy.

I guess there is a small idea in what you are saying, but the USA has been very poor at leaving behind 'friendly corrupt dictators' to help them with that aim, if it is an aim. It mostly backfires on them sooner or later, because they can't control it well enough.


[edit on 14/2/2009 by RubberBaron]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
there was never a vacuum of power. The people in power who were trying to do good for their country all died in some mysterious plane crash or food poisoning.....totalitarians and dictators that were put into place ALWAYS had ties with the our government...WE put the "worse" in power to benefit for the US. If you haven't already, you should read Confession of an Economic Hitman



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


We abandoned because we did our job already....lay destruction, lead someone chaotic into power who will benefit us, dig up some oil wells, send out some christian missionaries (in some countries) and get the hell outta dodge.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAbstract
there was never a vacuum of power. The people in power who were trying to do good for their country all died in some mysterious plane crash or food poisoning.....totalitarians and dictators that were put into place ALWAYS had ties with the our government...WE put the "worse" in power to benefit for the US. If you haven't already, you should read Confession of an Economic Hitman


I have read confessions of an economic hitman, and it's almost all speculation. While it is totally true that the IMF and World Bank meddle in many countries, and that can be shown, most of his wild claims about assasinations and so on are groundless accusations. Most people don't consider them serious, I've forgotton them now, but there are some serious inconsistencies in his accounts, I will try and find them again to show you.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAbstract
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


We abandoned because we did our job already....lay destruction, lead someone chaotic into power who will benefit us, dig up some oil wells, send out some christian missionaries (in some countries) and get the hell outta dodge.


Apart from Iraq, which is so fresh that we do still have some people we can manipulate there, how many other counties that the USA meddled in can you say USA still have this kind of influence in? Hardly anyone in South America does what you want them to anymore, and it's the same with almost all the others. Only a very few still do USAs bidding, most, like Iraq duing the later 80s, turned against the USA again strongly in a short space of time, years, or low decades.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
You say about the assassinations being accusations could be true....but what is true is the fact the most of the Bad leaders in power are connected to the our government for our benefit....for instance the whole CIA contra debacle. If we stayed in those other countries we would've been in the same mess as Iraq with people wondering why we are their. The only difference is that good ol' George W. wasn't in power to make those stupid mistakes



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Blah,

Yeah, I had no problem with whacking Sadam and everyone knew it was going to happen (Attempt on Bush 1's life and all, anyone with half a brain knew the son was going to remove this fool).

The military did it's job, being a 9 year veteran myself our biggest fear was "Peacekeeping" duty especially if we were involved with the UN so I know that taking the enemy out and getting the hell out of dodge is preference.

I object to sticking around that sandtrap and pouring billions in to a big sand-hole because we will NEVER see a return on investment there.

Try to find some government that isn't corrupt. Chablis was our first choice and he was a corrupt idiot. The current government is corrupt as hell. They seem to all be pieces of.... will "work" we will say.

We have a problem on our own southern border that I think our military should address before Mexico collapses under the weight of cartels and corruption... we can defend Iraq from foreign invasion with our Navy / Air forces... trust me there, any column of tanks / Army coming over from Syria or Iran can be fragged in minutes.

Pull our Army out and start addressing the terrorist threat of the drug cartels... screw law enforcement, take these bastards out. That is the job our Army / Marines should be doing now, protection of OUR border and stabilizing OUR neighbors, and liberating OUR neighbors from the overlords down south.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


You're missing the point again....we don't want to help the other countries...we want them to be chaotic, it's how we keep our influence there. We have MAJOR influence in south america with all the big US companies down there. thats how we can get things from them so cheap and sell it to our own people for over 600%. Take a look at our situation......the number one killer in the US is heart disease. Everyone knows fast food and all these other popular fatty foods causes heart disease yet we let them reign supreme in the food industry. The "chaotic" inner city people who act like there's nothing wrong with it at all are the biggest consumers of these foods....but who cares about that? Health care isn't important, right....funding to keep the troops in iraq is more important....keep the people stupid so you can control them



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 


Ok I don't even know why you're wasting your time talking about getting rid of drug cartels.....you know full well our government makes tons of money off of drugs....I GAURANTEE we won't do much more for the so called "war on drugs", so you can just forget about that idea



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Pull our Army out and start addressing the terrorist threat of the drug cartels... screw law enforcement, take these bastards out. That is the job our Army / Marines should be doing now, protection of OUR border and stabilizing OUR neighbors, and liberating OUR neighbors from the overlords down south.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by infolurker]


I think you have a fair point in a way here, you do have your own problems on that border that need to be dealt with, Mexico is a country that could really use some serious intervention.

A big problem I think with undertaking these actions, is the public don't have the stomach for it anymore, one death is too many for them, and that's just not realistic if you want to get the job done in a war. Even with all the drones and tech, it still takes some men with balls to go in at some point.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


I really think instead of sole bias, number and weigh the pro's and con's for this occupation through tryanny.


LIST THEM write pros and cons not some article, after your point is made thru numerical supremacy then state your biased opp.

I understand that there are trolls who try to anger people out there. Thats rediculos.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join