After todays bombing and other recent acts of terrorism, one is left wondering if the "Iraq problem" will just fade away like America wants it to... Thoughts?
No its not going to fade away. The problem is, whether or not its wrong or even acceptable to those of us in the west, that culture respects strength. Until someone rises to the occasion and consolidates power there is going to be instability and unrest.
Democracy just does not work in some places and cultures. The sooner this is understood the better off world affairs will be. We tried to impose our will and vision of government on this nation without ever really asking them what they wanted in the first place. Case in point Saddam was one man, amongst millions. he stayed in power because his people allowed him to.
Like it or not until the first gulf war Iraq was a very prosperous and modern nation, and one of the few in the region where religion was not allowed to control the gov't. Saddam was for all intents an atheist, worshiping himself as God. he did all he could to keep the clerics from rising to power and even refused to allow Bin Laden into his nation, as he saw him as a threat to his total power. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before 2003, at least that's the intelligence we uncovered while i was there.
I guess you'll get over it or wake up and realize the world is not the pretty place you hope it is. Some people do not want and will not accept democracy wake up!
Well done I wondered if you'd notice a reference to your own past comments.
Hello Scott. You make some very good points.
I wonder why America stood by while this despot built all his palaces.
I cannot believe America did not know what he was doing all those years ago when he became "god" surely they should have stepped in then, when he was still accepted by the USA as the leader.
He stayed in power because he terrorized and brutally repressed 'his' people.
He stayed in power because the masses refused to stand up for themselves and take unified action. Those who will not fight for their own freedom will never deserve it.The Iraqi people certainly have not had a problem standing up to the American occupation.
You absolutely right on this. You can't view the Middle East through American eyes.....
No, it won't and sooner than later Iraq will not be our biggest problem.
egic, it certainly is food for thought. I believe the USA will be trying to get leverage from what Pakistan is doing, as it seems the Taliban are strongly based there.
I do not see an easy way to ease the ethnic violence in Iraq soon.
Im not sure what you mean by the Iraq problem.as a American im not wanting to forget about the Iraqi people or their plight. .The newest bombings have me wondering >For what? Why? Do the ones wanting to topple the government have a better one in mind. Who do they want to lead in Iraq? What do they want for the people of Iraq? From what i see they want death.From what i see they still want war and fear.We could stay and give them both.As we leave and violence continues .America wont be easy to blame anymore. It is painfully obvious that we cant fix things.Im left wondering will the Iraqi people ever be able to .
I think we need to realize that what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is the future of U.S. military action.
Terrorism will always have its pockets around the world and the U.S. and Israel will always be the targets for most of the terrorists.
I do not care about Israel (that's another post) but for the U.S. to survive, we will have to take matters in our own hands to combat the terrorists. Granted, Iraq didn't start as a terrorist haven but could be in the future.
The stability of Iraq is crucial for U.S. interests.
The same is for Afghanistan. We do need to get countries like Pakistan to put a good amount of resources and troops to the cause and I'm glad they are doing that.
But, for the most part, U.S. troop will be used for the majority of the wars against terrorism. And until Russia and China have terrorism problems originating outside of their countries, we can't expect them to help.
I don't think we need to build our armies against other nations anymore. We will have a military to protect our homeland from terrorism. And these little pockets of unrest and wars will be commonplace around the world.
I don't see anyway around that and we need to accept the new reality.
And the moment we don't have a military capable of defending against a hostile state guess what will happen?
Russia and China know this but taking over the U.S. isn't in their interests. The only 2 countries that would love to do that but don't have the power is North Korea and Iran.
But Russia and China know we are spread thin and couldn't defend against a homeland attack by either country. But that is just not in their best interests, especially since we owe China trillions
We have major problems in Iraq because we want to establish democracy, reduce colateral damage and maintain our "police" status with world affairs.
Home security against Russia or China would be a diff ballgame. that among other things keeps them at bay for the moment.
I don't think we could with over half of our military all over the world. But a deterrent would be nuclear weapons and that would be our main defense at this point.
But my point is that fighting small pockets of terrorism (and resistance in the future) will be our future enemies, not whole countries, unless their leaders are terrorists, like in Afghanistan.
There was a mistake to enter this war in the first place. When mistake is recognized, usually the most beneficial course of action is to cut loses short...
Ok, trying to steer this away from becoming another petty tit-for-tat argument, I think there have been a lot of good points. I think the biggest problem is that we invaded, and by doing that we took a bat to a bee hive, creating a mess that we were barely able to understand, let alone combat. We destroyed the only thing that was holding the country together, even if it was doing this through fear and violence. We unleashed powerful, complex ethnic tensions that have deep historical roots.
We have absolutely made progress since then, but progress is only really measured in terms of how bad or less bad it is. As we saw yesterday, the country has not reached even the minimal level of stability that allows one to go outside without the fear of a bomb going off.
This is why I believe that we should not have pulled out from Iraq (I wrote a couple hubs on it) as much as we did, not because I want to "win" or kill "bad guys," but because we left it a mess, and it doesn't take a foreign policy expert to see that it is not going to get better just because America wills it to.
Rhamson, the US is withdrawing and security is being handled by Iraqi's for Iraq. they tear themselves apart not US or their allies.
by Paula 2 years ago
Within days of the attacks on Paris, the news is saying France is being merciless in their bombing of certain sites n Syria. The United States intelligence shared with them, so they knew where to potentially bomb. The news said the United States gave basically a menu to choose from, and...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
6/12/14: "Rampaging Islamic jihadists surged within 60 miles of Baghdad as the U.S. scrambled ... to airlift hundreds of Americans to safety." "...the Al Qaeda-inspired forces seized control of several cities — and warned the capital was next."6/13/14:The U.S. ordered an...
by The stallion 2 years ago
People all over the world think that we Pakistanis are all terrorists. I beg to differ! I know that recently there have been quite a few terrorist activities around the world which were supposedly associated with Pakistan. Even if a few Pakistanis were associated with these activities, why is the...
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on...
by Ralph Deeds 8 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq. Recently, comments about our military efforts in Afghanistan are becoming more...
by My Esoteric 22 months ago
The subject is the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" which seeks to amend the federal judicial code "to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|