• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

Erod said:
How long until Iran goes to war with Iraq for the 100th time?
Click to expand...

Why would Iran want to go to war with Iraq? Iraq has a moderately pro-Iran Shiite regime in place, which doesn't seem keen on provoking any of its neighbors. Contrast that to Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, and was bellicose toward everyone else in the region...including launching an invasion of Iran (with an assist from the United States).

Neither the government of Iran nor the government in Iraq has any reason to go to war with the other, and both seem pretty focused on building a good working relationship with their neighbor.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
I'm saying that private military contractors and weapon systems companies and warplane manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that wars happening so that they may profit by them via government contracts.

Which is made all the worse considering that Congressmen may decide on these defense contracts while remaining shareholders in companies competing (or sometimes not) for a contract. Even though the staff of Congressmen and members of an executive agency are barred from owning shares in such companies while serving their country.
Click to expand...

There are many companies which profit from government contracts in peace time and in war. If the US is going to involve itself in a war than they will need ammunition, among other supplies. This is public knowledge, and has always been so.



Well, as has been pointed out, the troop withdrawal is not strictly because of domestic political purposes. They are being withdrawn because Iraq refuses to continue immunity from prosecution for war crimes for U.S. soldiers.

But let's say that wasn't a factor. It is silly to say that foreign policy and domestic policy exist in a vacuum from each other. If our domestic well-being has suffered from the current recession that does not mean our foreign policy goes unaffected. After all, if we can pay for the basics of our domestic policies, such as education and transportation infrastructure, it is insane to suggest that we can continue to pay for a war like we did before the recession.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the United States and its citizens do not live in a vacuum. Just because you exit this particular battlefield does not mean that the war is over.
Click to expand...
 
Well as usual Obama is never going to win with many cons in this thread.

If he does do it.

"He's weak! He's Making a mistake! What an idiot"

If he doesn't do it.

"Hey Libbo's! He went back on his promises! Hows that hope and change working out for you".

Meh.

Good, Iraq should never have been fought in the first place.
 
Kandahar said:
Why would Iran want to go to war with Iraq? Iraq has a moderately pro-Iran Shiite regime in place, which doesn't seem keen on provoking any of its neighbors. Contrast that to Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, and was bellicose toward everyone else in the region...including launching an invasion of Iran (with an assist from the United States).

Neither the government of Iran nor the government in Iraq has any reason to go to war with the other, and both seem pretty focused on building a good working relationship with their neighbor.
Click to expand...

Maybe, this time, it really is all about oil.
 
Grant said:
That's just a ridiculous excuse. All Americans everywhere are subject to local laws and have never had diplomatic immunity.
Click to expand...
Immunity from prosecution is a standard feature of U.S. status-of-forces agreements around the world. This is why the Abu-Ghraib and Haditha prosecutions were held in US military courts rather than in Iraqi criminal courts.
 
Grant said:
There are many companies which profit from government contracts in peace time and in war. If the US is going to involve itself in a war than they will need ammunition, among other supplies. This is public knowledge, and has always been so.
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether the U.S. will issue contracts for ammunition, among other supplies, in order to get involved in a war.

The question is whether the U.S. will get involved in a war in order to issue contracts for ammunition, among other supplies.

Grant said:
The fact is that the United States and its citizens do not live in a vacuum. Just because you exit this particular battlefield does not mean that the war is over.
Click to expand...

That is true.

But it does mean that the war will be over for the U.S. Which something that, apparently, the Iraqis want as well.
 
Kandahar said:
Why would Iran want to go to war with Iraq? Iraq has a moderately pro-Iran Shiite regime in place, which doesn't seem keen on provoking any of its neighbors. Contrast that to Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni, and was bellicose toward everyone else in the region...including launching an invasion of Iran (with an assist from the United States).

Neither the government of Iran nor the government in Iraq has any reason to go to war with the other, and both seem pretty focused on building a good working relationship with their neighbor.
Click to expand...

If they did it would be because of Iraq's relationship with the US. Iran already hates the Saudis because of their productive relationship with the US. It's not hard to see then extending that policy toward Iraq.
 
EagleAye said:
If they did it would be because of Iraq's relationship with the US. Iran already hates the Saudis because of their productive relationship with the US. It's not hard to see then extending that policy toward Iraq.
Click to expand...

Unusually for a Muslim country, Iran has a majority Shia population. Now that Saddam's minority Sunni control is gone, the nominally secular Iraq is Shia too. Why would they fight?
 
"Thunder"- rest assured that many or more will be in kuwait,I'm married to the military so I know a little. While it's nice of civvies to feel better for the military and their families, we're still facing deployments, just a different location.
 
Tashah said:
Immunity from prosecution is a standard feature of U.S. status-of-forces agreements around the world. This is why the Abu-Ghraib and Haditha prosecutions were held in US military courts rather than in Iraqi criminal courts.
Click to expand...

You are quite right and my response was inaccurate. I misunderstood that the argument being made was that American troops would be immune from local laws.

There does seem to be a very dangerous game being played here, however, and the story behind it should be very interesting. On the face of it there seems little sense.
 
samsmart said:
The question isn't whether the U.S. will issue contracts for ammunition, among other supplies, in order to get involved in a war.

The question is whether the U.S. will get involved in a war in order to issue contracts for ammunition, among other supplies.
Click to expand...

That would have to ve a helluva stimulus program. Unless solar energy is involved I don't see that happening.



That is true.

But it does mean that the war will be over for the U.S. Which something that, apparently, the Iraqis want as well.
Click to expand...

The US cannot decide when the war is over. That will be determined by others.
Click to expand...
 
Manc Skipper said:
Unusually for a Muslim country, Iran has a majority Shia population. Now that Saddam's minority Sunni control is gone, the nominally secular Iraq is Shia too. Why would they fight?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they will (it's all still up in the air), but if they did it would be because Iraq is supplying the US with oil and Iraq does not engage in anti-American rhetoric. Iraq may start talking nasty after we leave, in which case Iran would approve. But if Iraq maintains a positive working relationship with the US, that would get on Iran's last good nerve.
 
EagleAye said:
If they did it would be because of Iraq's relationship with the US. Iran already hates the Saudis because of their productive relationship with the US. It's not hard to see then extending that policy toward Iraq.
Click to expand...

Iran is not ruled by cartoon villains constantly plotting the downfall of the United States. It is ruled by a government that looks out for what it views as its own best interests in foreign policy, just like every other government in the world. And it is certainly not in Iran's interests to go to war with the only ally it has in the region. The Islamic Republic is on thin ice as it is.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well as usual Obama is never going to win with many cons in this thread.

If he does do it.

"He's weak! He's Making a mistake! What an idiot"

If he doesn't do it.

"Hey Libbo's! He went back on his promises! Hows that hope and change working out for you".

Meh.

Good, Iraq should never have been fought in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, we never should have invaded in the first place. That is true.
 
Kandahar said:
Iran is not ruled by cartoon villains constantly plotting the downfall of the United States. It is ruled by a government that looks out for what it views as its own best interests in foreign policy, just like every other government in the world. And it is certainly not in Iran's interests to go to war with the only ally it has in the region. The Islamic Republic is on thin ice as it is.
Click to expand...

Iran is hardly in the habit of behaving in a statesmanly way. In fact it's very hateful and ungentlemanly rhetoric is more reminiscent of a cartoon villain than a careful planner of foreign policy. If Iraq doesn't play the game of "ally" exactly as Iran expects it, we may see conflict between the two. What you left out of my quote is that I'm NOT saying that conflict will happen for certain, only that it might. And if it does, it will be because Iraq doesn't behave as Iran wants it to.
 
EagleAye said:
Iran is hardly in the habit of behaving in a statesmanly way. In fact it's very hateful and ungentlemanly rhetoric is more reminiscent of a cartoon villain than a careful planner of foreign policy. If Iraq doesn't play the game of "ally" exactly as Iran expects it, we may see conflict between the two. What you left out of my quote is that I'm NOT saying that conflict will happen for certain, only that it might. And if it does, it will be because Iraq doesn't behave as Iran wants it to.
Click to expand...
It is more likely to be a friendly partnership between them. Iraq has more to worry about internally.
 
EagleAye said:
Iran is hardly in the habit of behaving in a statesmanly way.
Click to expand...

If that were the case then they would never have acquired the power they currently have. A country like Iran doesn't get to be a regional power by making foolish decisions. Its government has a pretty solid grasp of where its interests lie. Much moreso than ours does, I suspect.

In fact it's very hateful and ungentlemanly rhetoric is more reminiscent of a cartoon villain than a careful planner of foreign policy.
Click to expand...

You're referring to Ahmadinejad? He has no real power anyway.

If Iraq doesn't play the game of "ally" exactly as Iran expects it, we may see conflict between the two. What you left out of my quote is that I'm NOT saying that conflict will happen for certain, only that it might. And if it does, it will be because Iraq doesn't behave as Iran wants it to.
Click to expand...

That threat of conflict doesn't seem to deter every other country in the region from not being Iran's ally. Bullying countries into an alliance doesn't work for very long, as we've discovered in Afghanistan and, well, Iraq.
 
Kandahar said:
You're referring to Ahmadinejad? He has no real power anyway.
Click to expand...
True.

Kandahar said:
That threat of conflict doesn't seem to deter every other country in the region from not being Iran's ally. Bullying countries into an alliance doesn't work for very long, as we've discovered in Afghanistan and, well, Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't believe they're allied with "every" country in the region, do you? Saudi Arabia and Iran have been squabbling for a while now.

But if they get along, that's perfectly cool with me. Some stability would be a nice change of pace.

I just hope they don't get along so well that, after the US sells Iraq some F-16s, Iraq immediately flies them over the border to join the Iranian air force. I have a sick feeling that's also possible.
 
Good. It's about damned time. We NEVER should have been in Iraq in the first place.
 
So happy for the Troops out there who finally get to come home. I served in Basra with the British army and had nothing but respect for the way the Americans conducted themselves and how they handled a very tough situation. Compared to many American postings Basra was an easy 12 months and I almost felt guilty when Britain pulled out of Basra a few years ago because there was part of me that wanted us to stay and see the rest of the job through with out allies. Even if you were against the war and against our occupation of Iraq I think we can all agree that the Americans forces did a fantastic job in a very very tough situation and all the lads coming home deserve nothing but your gratitude and a couple of free beers when you see them in the bar!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom