Iraq war
After all, it’s a superpower’s prerogative to make these determinations.
A large majority of Americans want our troops out sooner rather than later.
Others, most notably the President, have floated the sobering idea that we might keep significant forces there for more than fifty years.
Divergent views on the issue exist among congressional Democrats. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has allowed that a ten year duration in Iraq feels just about right to her. Meanwhile, our own Mark Udall has endorsed the Baker/Hamilton report’s quiet allusion to an enduring U.S. presence of some 70,000 troops, if only to defend Iraq’s presumedly then privatized petroleum assets.
But, while we dither over these matters, events in Iraq may soon compel what many a Cassandra has long predicted. The insurgents are systematically blowing up every bridge in Baghdad, gradually encircling the increasingly isolated & vulnerable Green Zone. Whatever fatuous timelines may be set in Washington, the insurgency seems to be inexorably moving ahead with its plan to overrun the Green Zone before the enormously secretive new U.S. embassy there is scheduled to open for official business in August.
This letter has not been edited.
How about keeping them there as long as we've had troops in Germany.
Posted by Jimminy on June 30, 2007 08:58 PMAny weakness we show both to a Arabs and Muslim is a mistake and if we cut and run...they will take full advantage of it and the situation in the world will only get worse. Our enemy views this as both a war of civilization and religion.
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/terror1.asp
Posted by Joe on June 30, 2007 09:33 PMWe can keep then there as long as we have had troops in Germany and South Korea only if the conditions for the troops are the same as in those countries.
Before we went into Iraq, they had a stable, albeit not very nice society. Now it seems all they have is an insurgency getting better and better at fighting us.
somehow I don`t view this as good.
Are we to forever avoid doing the right thing, leaving this sad country, because the Arabs and Muslims want us too?
Are we staying just to prove a point? If so what?
r
Posted by Sharon B. on July 1, 2007 06:28 AMHow about directly commenting on the MORALITY of stealing other people's property? I'm sure most supporters of the US occupation of Iraq also possess the capability to take candy from a child, but do you folks actually do that?
The US occupation of Iraq is immoral. We are violating every principle we say we believe in. Perhpas it like the ethics of a mob. Individually each person is fairly decent, but as a mob you have lost most of your decency and morals. Are you going to carry every television (metaphor for the oil we are insisting be "pritivatized") out of Iraq? Are you going to continue kiling the employees of the store unitl they are all dead or run off (metaphor for the Soviet style subjugation of the people and installation of a puppet government)? Do you care so little about the US milltary as it is being transformed into the self-righteous, arrogant murdering military of the British Empire(especailly poignant near the 4th of July)? Or are you afraid to speak the truth because it would mean admitting to a crime?
Posted by Dave on July 1, 2007 08:54 AMIt's pointless to accuse a government of immorality.If there is such a thing as morality,it applies only to humans,not the creatures generated by the gathering of large numbers of people-like mobs,corporations,and governments.We're in trouble in Iraq partly because (A)going in was tactically and strategically not necessary and (B) American society is so polarized that our two main political groups each consider the other more evil than any external enemy.Iraq is just the current bete noir.Used to be OJ,Monica,Richard Nixon,the do-nothing 83rd Congress and others.So Osama,Hugo Chavez,Adme-what's-his-name,and behind them China watch with quiet pleasure while we waste our resources beating on each other.