Skip to main content

So what is the opinion on the "immediate withdrawl". Many conservatives argue that we have to stay "until the job is finished".

The ones over at are some scary folks. ConFed is a liberal compared to these guys. I really think that they are white. Big Grin
_______________________ "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

We should go!!!



Western countries created the mess that is Iraq, beginning around 1914.

The former Ottoman states (Wilayat) of Mosul, Baghdad, and Al Basrah (now called Iraq) are three disparate areas that were placed under the rule of Hashimite King Faisal (imported for his Western friendliness), from the Hijaz region of Arabia after being induced to fight on the side of the British against the Turks for the reward of sovereignty.

Besides the geographical differences, the newly named Iraq (actually an old name reborn) was a complicated ethnic and religious mix. Particularly incensed about the boundries established by Western powers were the Kurds, who had no desire to be ruled from Baghdad. In the south the tribesmen and Shi's had a similar resistance to central control. Everyone in the region resented the false lines of demarcation that cut off Kuwait, a "mini-state" they believed to be a part of their country. The faux borders also limited access to the Gulf's waters.

In establishing their rule over Iraq (with the blessing of the League of Nations), the British layed the ground work for the current violent instability. Iraq wound up as a testing ground for the use of British aircraft against guerrilla fighters and their villages (a Winston Churchill production). Throughout the the 1920s, 30s, 40s and most of the 50s Iraq was bombed from the air and had their first experience with the use of poison gases (against them).

That is a clue as to what Western imperialists mean when they say they only want democracy to spread. What they really want is to run the region, and above all else, maintain access to its oil.

Too many people think that war and colonizing in the interests of economic gain are okay. I say it is not. What is the difference when it is done on a small scale? Racketeering. And, when it's done by individuals it's called stealing, aggravated robbery, homicide (for profit)... etc.
I definitely don't think an "immediate" withdrawal would be a good idea ... for anyone concerned.

A gradual pullout, with about a six month timespan ... I'm very much in agreement with.

Bush's plan is to stay in Iraq until the end ... but the end of what? When is whatever we're doing finished? If he can't answer that question, then conceivably it's now or never. Roll Eyes
Originally posted by Fine:


You say that there was "NOTHING WRONG" because YOU ARE NOT THERE.


Originally posted by Isome:

Why not? We were and remain the focal point of violence because we are occupiers. What would six more months months of occupation achieve?

Using YOUR LOGIC (or lack there of) we should pull the Police out of certain inner city neighborhoods because CLEARLY they are more of the focus of demonstrations than the PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTING THE CRIMES THERE.

Benton Harbor, St Petersburg, LA - all recent riots that were Police focused.

PULL EM OUT. Let the Hip Hop artists use their influence on the masses to maintain control of these cities. (and MAKE you stay there as well so you can get a dose of reality to crash your theory)
Originally posted by MidLifeMan:
The ones over at are some scary folks. ConFed is a liberal compared to these guys. I really think that they are white. Big Grin

And what do you say about the Black folks that post on, and in truth just about every other Black oriented message board? Since their quasi-socialist policies sound just like Ted Kennedy and in many cases Fidel Castro WE CAN SAY "THEY SOUND WHITE" as well, right?

If their policies are "working in the best interests of Black people" I have yet to see it. They might be handing out fish but they are CERTAINLY not conducting FISHING LESSONS.
Originally posted by MBM:

And precisely WHO is "conducting fishing lessons" and what are the results of those actions?

There are PLENTY of fine programs who are "teaching kids how to fish".

former football great Jim Brown has a good program for mentoring mostly Black kids. Even your ideological enemy Jesse Lee Peters has a good program called B.O.N.D. that goes into the community and applies a comprehensive set of solutions to kids in his program. Many churches throughout the country have programs that extend beyond Sunday School and engage young people with character building activities. And of course we have the Boy Scouts.

We still need more PARENTS to do their part and allow these other groups to only suplement what the kids receive at home.
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Out!!! On EbonyRose's rationale.

This society needs a 'strongman' construction for the next generation, at least.
Hopefully, that 'strongman', likely to be Cheruba (sp) will not be abusive.


Jim Chester

You're referring to Chalabi. He & his cronies played Cheney and his warmongering cronies for fools. He was also accused of providing Iran intel about the U.S. Whatever blowback that results with his installation is well-deserved.

Cultural arrogance, which is white supremacy adopted by sadly conflicted non-whites, says that only "we" can fix what we continue to screw up after all these decades, when in fact, we cannot fix it or we would have done so already.

Our invasion, based on our lies, has created a common goal and a common enemy (our ouster and us) for secular and Muslim fundamentalist Iraqis. History is repeating itself because we refuse to learn from it. Outside of the toll in human life it continues to take, there are more dire financial consequences. And, with financial instability comes political unrest.

It [Iraq] started out with financial instability because of Britain -- under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1922 the Iraqis were required to contribute to the Ottoman Public Debt Administration, the debts of the liquidated empire to the invading powers. Further, the British demanded they be paid for the "military equipment, stores and operations against the Turks, as well as the cost of building a military railway that had absolutely no commercial value to Iraq". Finally, they demanded the Iraqi government spend at least 25 percent of its revenues on defense"”a slick way of saying they would have to militarily suppress the Iraqis who refused to submit to British rule. Ultimatley, Faisal had to pay the British to stay in power and the Iraqi people bore the financial burden of Britain's imperialism.

We have voided contracts with other countries (meaning Iraq will not have to pay others, but neither will it be paid) and we have no record of millions or billions of gallons of oil that was supposed to generate revenue for Iraq's reconstruction. Clearly, we're repeating a pattern that, in the end, creates a picture we refuse to live with.

A blast from the past that may sound familiar:
    From Gertrude Bell -- a woman who did not believe women in Britain should vote, but believed that she was qualified to esentially be the ruler behind the ruler in Iraq --

    On June 27 1920, she was writing: "In this flux, there is no doubt they are turning to us." In fact, the Shia tribes of the entire middle Euphrates rose in revolt the next month, and hundreds of British soldiers and as many as 8,000 Iraqis were killed before it could be suppressed.
Originally posted by Isome:
Why not? We were and remain the focal point of violence because we are occupiers. What would six more months months of occupation achieve?

Well, there are a few reasons. First of all, unlike in Bush's mind, this is not a game. We are talking about real lives ... American and Iraqi. You can't just do some kind of "put 'em in, take 'me out" on a whim thing like it's a game of chess. Life and death situations are on the line. And, yes, we went in there with no clue of nothing, but, in regards of what to do ... but, I don't think we need to pull out the same way. Some thoughtful process of what really needs to be done now that we have totally f***ed up everything over there needs to be put in order.

Secondly, consideration for what will happen to/with those ordinary Iraqi citizens needs to be thought about. If you remember what Daddy Bush did - he went over there, promised those people if they fought Sadaam we would fight with them, they did ... and we left them high and dry. To add insult to injury, we did nothing when Sadaam gassed them for doing what WE asked them to do. Will that happen again if we do the same thing?? Of course, Sadaam is no longer in power to inflict that same kind of torture on those people, but, will those terrorist just take his place and do the same things? Or, when we leave, will all the Iraqis jump up and hug each other and sing kumbaya around the campfire??

Third, I do believe that EVERYBODY has a responsibility to take responsibility for their actions. Regardless of who you are and what that action is. And immediate pullout would say -- or rather be -- just like going into a china store, breaking a set of dishes, and feeling like you're not responsible for the loss. I'm sure that if it were your china store, you would definitely feel like some kind of compensation was in order.

I'm not saying that I believe we can "fix" what we have broken in Iraq. It is a mess beyond belief really, what is going on over there. And we aren't living it here, so it's much easier to put a pretty little bow on it and say "it's going to be okay". We are forcing democracy where I don't believe such a thing will work. Some other form of governance for the Middle East is in order, because they're form of society and living has never been condusive to a "democracy" type standard. But, we do owe them a solution. What the hell that might be ... I have no idea! But somebody needs to think of something. Roll Eyes

Six months of withdrawal would give us time to see what is going to happen as we leave, not when we leave. It would give us a chance to adjust and to see how much good (or bad) us leaving them to fend for themselves would do. It would enable a PLAN (which is a foreign concept to this whole operation!) which is something we should have had from the beginning and certainly would be more effective than what we're doing now.

I guess in short, an immediate pull out would be just as shortsided, brainless, immature and destructive as what GWB did by going in there the way he did in the first place. And that was the maximum amount of stupidity that needs to be dedicated to this situation.
You're referring to Chalabi.---Isome

Thanks for the help.

I think Chalabi did his country a favor. He is what I see patriotism being all about.

The 'Bush Empire', and Bush II in particular, is not and has never been, about helping Iraq.

I am for getting out because we have no national interest in being there. It is ASL about the oil!!!!!!

The bad in Iraq is for Iraq to fix. As long as they KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES. quiet as it's kept, we DO NOT need the oil.

We have all the energy resources we need INCLUDING keeping the petrochemical industry if that is what has to be.

All this 'oil' thing is about vested PERSONAL interests.


Jim Chester
Originally posted by Isome:

On that we can agree. They're not children who require our guidance in how to run their country. When we learn keep our weapons to ourselves there will be less violence the world over.


You sound like Alsadir, the leader of the Suni rebels who now says he is going to work with the government. Last year during an interview with "60 Minutes" he told the story of how Saddam killed his father and oppressed the people of the country. He then said 'By the grace of Allah, Saddam has been removed'.

Somehow in his LOGIC (or lack thereof) he could not make the connection that it was the US's INVASION that had toppled Saddam and allowed for the people of the country to have this opportunity to pick a government of their own choosing. In fact he continued his fighting against the very forces that opened up this opportunity for his people.

NOW after many bombs and gun fights - he is working WITH the government that was born out of the opening that the US made for him.


You both suffer from the complex of SKIPPING OVER and NOT MENTIONING EVENTS that DON'T FAVOR your THEORY as you arrive at a conclusion.

What YOU call "guidance" I call being a similar scenario that we once saw in the American South where Union troops were pulled out too soon as an insergent force, having just lost a war could not wait to get their hands on the people who had been protected by this "invading army". African-Americans caught nearly 75 years of hell because of this. I have to wonder if you were alive just prior to reconstruction in this country what your views would be.
Originally posted by MBM:
CF - your reference was Democrat versus Republican. What are the Republican fishing lessons that have proven results in the black community?

Well MBM - since you like to play "opposing sides" so frequently I figure that since Unions have been so favorable to "Black Interests" then the entity that typically sits at the other side of the negotiating table must be the opposing force - that being the corporations.

With this reference I say that the corporations and those who run them have provided plentyful "fishing lessons" to the Black community. As a matter of fact - if you bothered to listen to the audio report that I posted about Camden NJ you would have noted the critical importance that corporations played in developing the economic infrastructure of these great northern cities and how the Black standard of living flourished while these corps were around.

Funny enough that when the corporations departed the standard of living degraded.....YET it is the corporations that receive the most vile attacks in the ideolological frame work of some people. Rarely do I see them successfully recreating the economic and educational environment via their way of doing things that these evil corporations who have policies that the "Republicans" seem to advance have been successful at achieving for many Americans.

Again I ask you, MBM, if you were focused on achieving a certain outcome for Black people "By Any Means Necessary" would you be willing to alter some of your ways of thinking because time has shown that they have not moved you closer to your end? Are you more committed to your IDEOLOGY or your OBJECTIVES is the real question for you. Thus far it seems pretty clear to me - outside looking in. ohsnap

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.