Originally Posted by Hotduck

After he died his sons would have taken over, and they were said to be even more evil. The people of Iraq could not have taken down Saddom without the help of a stronger nation like USA that’s just fact

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

This is untrue and history has shown many cases where the People have overthrown tyrannical regimes.



Apparently you haven't been reading the news lately. There is a war between al-Sadr's militias and the US backed militias.

Of note is the fact that the US invasion has lead to more deaths than Saddam's regime. People talk about the estimated 4,000 Kurds that Saddam's regime gassed but fail to mention that 80,000 dead because of the US invasion.



To do so we have to "takes sides" in an internal conflict. Why not support al-Sadr instead of al-Maliki? Both are radical Shia fundamentalists so why are we taking sides? To support one is to oppose the Iraqi followers of the other.



Once again the proposal is for a top-down government, that by necessity, must be tyrannical to impose its power. "A strong Iraqi government" simply means a government that can impose its will by tyrannical action. Basically those that advocate this are saying "Let's replace Saddam's tyrannical regime with one of US making."

Since when have the American People supported tyranny by a government?

Originally Posted by Hotduck

Yes, I have bean watching the news and theirs a war between the elected government of Iraq and al-Sadr's militias. I know you hate to admit it but there is a big part of the Iraqi population that supports the elected government and even the U.S troops.

That is whom we back; we back the 11million people who voted we back the Iraqi army and people who are trying to fight back against the radials like AQI and al-Sadr. You are trying to act like no one in Iraq backs their government and you in all due respect are wrong.

Before some people doubted that elected government of Iraq had the will or the ability to fight Sadr it turns out they do and to do that they must have support of a significant number of the people in Iraq.

Originally Posted by TeaSea

Here's an interesting article on this subject, which includes a suggestion from an actual soldier on the ground in Iraq. The analogy of "steam control' seems very apt to me.
Letter From A Soldier: Answers You Won't Want To Hear - Politics on The Huffington Post

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Interesting points but you must remember that a considerable number of those that you cite voting in the Iraqi elections supported al-Sadr. As I recall al-Sadr holds sway over about 30 seats in the legislature. Do you recommend that we kill his supporters? Virtually all of the 2 million people in Basra support al-Sadr so do we kill them? All together al-Sadr may have well over 5 million followers in Iraq... what do you propose we do to them?

We must also remember that the Iraqis were not given a choice in their form of government or even the candidates that they were allowed to vote for.

In any case what you recommend is imposed tyranny over a rather large percentage of the Iraqi people. Has the US sunk so low as to literally support the tyranny of a government over its people?

One ironic fact is that al-Sadr is willing to support the US imposed Iraqi goverment and unilaterally called for a truce last year to allow the government to become more established. He recently extended that truce and it was the government forces that violated it, not al-Sadr. What al-Sadr wants is for the US to leave Iraq. That is the primary difference between al-Maliki and al-Sadr. Al-Maliki wants the US to support his regime and al-Sadr wants the US out so the Iraqi people can determine who the leaders will be.

Personally I would be hard pressed to define who the "villian" is in Iraq. Is it al-Sadr or al-Maliki. The answer is probably both to some degree.

Of course the violence between al-Maliki and al-Sadr has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or AQI. It is purely an internal dispute between two Iraqi factions and is an internal matter for Iraq that the US should not be involved in.

Looking at the possible bright side, if the US leaves Iraq then al-Sadr and al-Maliki would work out there differences since the biggest difference between them is the US occupation of Iraq.



The US already defeated the Iraqi People so we "won" the war but we are the ones responsible for the violence. Whether we look at the conflct between al-Maliki and al-Sadr or even AQI that violence ends when the US leaves. The Sunni's don't like AQI and AQI has no support once the US is gone. The conflict between al-Maliki and al-Sadr would also end if the US left Iraq because we are clearly the cause of the strife between them.

The threat of genocide is a boogyman that was invented by the Bush adminstration. Literally all signs indicate that it wouldn't happen if the US were to withdraw.

And please forgive me for choking over the "moral" argument. We violated the rights of the Iraqi People by waging war against them. There is no greater violation of morality than waging a war against an innocent People. The US invasion is directly responsible for over 80,000 dead Iraqis and millions have either been forced from their country or forced from their homes. The only moral responsibility the US has is to end its immoral occupation of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Hotduck

No you do not kill them, however, you do kill the ones that want and are helping Iran to take over Iraq.

Originally Posted by Delta9

All the shiite parties have close ties with Iran. Even Al Maliki. Using that logic you're going to kill most of the parliament of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Hotduck

No I disagree it is understandable that some people in the government of Iraq would have some tries to Iran. However, what matters is their intentions are they trying to have a way to deal with the Iran influence in their nation or are they trying to find away for Iran to take over Iraq.