Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDoes the US have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq until peace is secured?
Results so far:
| Yes | 44% | 269 votes | Total: 614 votes | |
| No | 56% | 345 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe United States has the obligation to stay in Iraq until peace is secured - but not for the Iraqi people. The obligation the United States has is to the United States.
Face it, if we were in Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people, we would have invaded a LOT earlier - or we would have finished the job and took out Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm.
He had rape rooms. Torture chambers. Mass graves. He killed many, many, many of his people. It sickens me when people think it was the "good old days" when he was in power.
So, we have two things that need to be made clear in order for Iraq to make sense:
1. We're there for us. It is the central front in the War on Terror. It is where we are actively killing thousands of terrorists, who are flooding into Iraq in order to BE killed - no thanks to the national media for overlooking this fact. Peace for Iraqi people is a positive side-benefit of safety for the United States and all of the civilized world.
2. It follows, then, that when our national security interest is realized, we leave. This point impacts the definition of "peace being secured."
"Peace" has to be defined. Obviously, there will not be a complete absence of violence. Not even the best city in the United States has that.
So "peace," as far as the United States is concerned, should be defined as the condition under which a free, moderate and strong government/military is established.
Peace is not the lack of roadside bombs. It is the scenario under which the Iraqi police will try to prevent such crimes, and investigate when they fail.
Peace is not the lack of terrorists. For our practical purposes, it is when Iraqi intelligence is trying to find them out, and when the Iraqi military is trying to kill them.
It's no different than in England or France or Germany. If these countries were being overrun by terrorists, we would be in there helping their governments, too.
Meanwhile, we have the bigwig networks - NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. - looking at the fact that Iraq's goverment missed 8 out of 18 benchmarks as a sign of failure.
Nevermind that the U.S. Congress has a much worse record - and that the benchmarks that the Iraqis HAVE met are impressive.
Here's what the defeatists/leftists/ mainstream media want you to believe:
1. Americans are being killed at a tremendous rate in Iraq (go ahead, study your history of wars - this one is actually going EXTREMELY well. And may God bless those troops who have died for this noble cause.)
2. America is the problem in Iraq, and removing Americans from the country will benefit the situation. Now, do you want to tell me how exactly this makes any sense at all? Go ahead, name any democrat who can explain this inane point. Which of the presidential candidtates is explaining how the situation would get better if the U.S. were to leave?
3. Progress is not being made. The surge IS working. Look at the July 12 Wall Street Journal (refreshing we have a newspaper willing to report progress instead of doom and gloom). The surge wasn't in place until mid-June, by which time the Democrats already were declaring defeat. The truth is, America CAN win.
4. The enemy is not that bad. The media has even taken to calling terrorists "insurgents." Here's a couple stories you probably DIDN'T read in the New York Times: The discovery of an entire village of children being decapitated and put into a mass grave. A common strong-arm terrorist practice in which they invite a family over for dinner, and serve them one of their own children, cooked, with an apple sticking out of their mouth. Increased confidence by the Iraqi people, including a healthier economy.
Folks, don't believe this tripe. DO believe in our mission in Iraq. The United States is doing something extremely idealistic - and that is good. It is a rough road, but we ARE winning, and we CAN finish the job.
We have an obligation to be there. And our troops have the will to be there. It's sad when the American people don't have the courage or clarity of mind to know what's right, and to do it.
Learn more about this author, J.R. Anthony.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The United States has moral obligation to itself and Iraqi people to slowly dissolve occupation presence so peace may secured by autonomously. No peace will be stronger than that which is self-induced. The occupation itself is creating barrier to peace. American occupation is hindering a natural progression toward balance of power among the three tribes there. The effort to create representative democracy there failed. This failure gives indication of appropriateness of that form of government in Iraq. It is supremely and ignorantly arrogant to think Iraqi culture conducive to and accepting of representative democracy as the most effective form of government to bring peace and stability there.
The disbandment of 140,000 Iraqi troops was the worst decision of the entire Bush administration tenure. This act alone prolonged American occupation by two years minimum. The disbanded troops had no job, no food to eat; and guns. No better recipe for insurgency could have been concocted by United State's worst enemy. This act alone (along with no exit strategy) tells one no exit plan made by the Bush administration. What politicians say supporting why we are there justifies benefit for the Cheney war machine only. The cost is unfairly born by soldiers, their families, and Iraqis.
This view is held with even the most conservative of citizens. They disagree with Mr. Bush and Congress; as shown by their lowest job performance ratings in the history of polling. Recently returning from a planned failed negotiation with Arab leaders regarding oil prices; Mr. Bush was all smiles. Most failed negotiators would show anything but a smile. You see unfortunately, Mr. Bush must fail to reach agreement with the Arab world in order to affirm to himself and the non-Arab world the evil nature of Muslims. This provides indirect emotional pseudo evidence of the "goodness" of Christians and Mr. Bush. This imperial occupation must be seen for the grim reality it is: a failed attempt to bring world peace by punishing Iraq and all Muslims for the insane act of a handful of extremists (CIA trained) on 9/11/2001.
I deplore the manner of Saddam's execution. He was placed in power and invited to invade Kuwait by the United States. His hanging at the hands of thugs is an embarrassment to the human race. Even the most evil of all rapscallions deserves death with dignity. The Koran states that if one kills another it is the same as destroying all of humanity. This is how Muslims live in peace. Not by imposition of Presence motivated by insatiable thirst for oil. That presence is justified by the false belief held by less than 1/4 of one percent of the Muslim world. Enough is enough. Let us consider the eye satisfied for the eye, and the tooth compensation for the tooth. I believe the three Iraqi factions will find a way to share power and life in the sand without involvement of the United States. It is in their best interest to find peace. It is in the United State's best interest to forget about revenge and stop spending money and lives on a hopeless guerrilla war.
I also believe good will can be improved with military withdrawal. Oil prices can be improved through diplomacy and good faith negotiations for fair prices.The Muslim is at peace when he is bowed toward Mecca. The water is at peace when the ripples have diminished. The world is at peace when American Soldiers withdraw occupation of Iraq.
Learn more about this author, Michael Shepard.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War in Iraq
- Should the US arm Sunnis in Iraq?
- There will be no victory in the War on Terror in the Iraq War
- Is the war in Iraq bad for the US economy?
- Will insurgency in Iraq ever end?
- Can Iraq overcome feuding between sects to create a united country?
- Should Iraq be partitioned into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sections?
