http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10147801/ Just posting because I felt it was interesting http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176338,00.html
Good for them, a sure sign of independance. But, I feel they might be a bit hasty in this decision, I mean, militarily are they strong enough to withstand the brunt of insurgents on their own?
They are still too unorginized and lacks a good trained millitary to combat the crimes when police can't. Baghdad is the Capital of Iraq but is also very sunni compared to the south. Baathists will have bigger chance to do a revolution then. Stay there and pump some oil is my advise.
Most likely they will. And U.S. troops aren't going to leave for a long time since there is no strong military iraqi force at this time.
Many of them are, not all but many do fight because of the foreign occupation. Get rid of the occupation and they will lose some active members unless they continue to feel the new power holders are still against them and only in place for a US stance.
My stance from the beginning was even if we get rid of Saddam, some other dictator will eventually take back over. How many Muslim countries are actually free? We messed up when we used our military as a humanitarion tool, and not for defense of our country.
When we decided to invade Iraq, despite the United Nations, it was for the purpose of getting the "weapons of mass destruction" out of Iraq. After a while, when it was obvious they weren't going to find any of these weapons, the purpose of American intervention changed to the freeing of an oppressed people and taking down of an evil dictator. From my point of view (and of course I could be wrong), I don't think we really thought there was any WOMD. I think the invasion was the result of an eager America to strike back at somebody--anybody--after 9/11. We thought if we took down a dictatorship, we would show the world we meant business. This isn't the purpose of a military. We should only use our military to defend our country, not try to prove points, get random revenge, or free people in a country other then our own. The fact I think we can't free a people who will eventually be dictated again is irrelevent. I have a biased opinion, since I did serve in the Army, and was discharged before being needed in Iraq. I have friends who went and died. Of course, I could be wrong.
I agree! I don't think it's a bad thing to help our allies in a time of need either though. But when was the last time we used our military to defend our country?
Point well taken. I guess you have to decide if helping is worth it. In this case, I don't think it was worth it. I don't think we are going to change decades of beliefs in a couple of years. But time will tell.
In my oppinion this was not the case nor was the war primarely intended to free the people of Iraq of an dictator. The war is totally based on Monetary reasons and self preservation of the U.S. economy.
You are partially correct and you bring up a great point, of which I'm sure Edz will disagree with. There however would be at least some who simply are fighting the occupation, once the occupation leaves they will give up the fight.
Many reasons are true, though none of them worthy. Just want to say that my feelings on the war in no way means I don't support our troops. We are there, and people are dying. I support everybody that is anyway affiliated with the war in Iraq. Except maybe GWB
Well.. people want strict rules, especially the shias. And democracy problems exist everywhere in the world. However.. I don't care as long as they aren't aggressive.
I think that the baathparty would rather see this as an opportunity. I assume that they can work much more freely when US leaves the country, carry out more wellplanned operations with more sofisticated weapons. They might decrease a bit when US withdraw(especially the foreign contribution which is 5% right now) but there's a lot of pro-Saddam societies there, especially in Baghdad.
Yes it could happen that way, I wont state it could not. Pro-Saddam societies as you call them however are already getting a huge bump simply form 'occupation' as far as recruitement goes. Getting rid of the occupation will take away that point of recruitement. It's possible w/o the US there more would join because they feel they have a chance, guess only time will tell.