The Couch

The US walking away from its responsibility?

Comments on The US walking away from its responsibility?

Rudi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Comments: 474
Rudi
Posted 04/24/07 - 11:09 AM:
Subject: The US walking away from its responsibility?
A Democratically-controlled Congress is vowing to have US troops out starting this Fall. The Democrats say that they do not want the US to be policing a civil war.

My question: Is the US walking away from its responsibility? It started the war. It destablisied the country. It unleashed the forces that are creating havoc and untold suffering among innocent civillians. Is it not its responsibility to fix things?

How should the international community respond to an American withdrawal now?

Although politically not realistic, given the power of the US, would it not make sense for the American President and his advisors to be prosecuted in international court for conducting an illegal war?

What do you think?

Rudi


beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
Posted 04/24/07 - 12:39 PM:

Hi there Rudi,

Willingness for prosecution for an illegal war from the country that wanted to impeach its president for using an intern as a humidor? Two chances; none and Buckley's. It's Alice thru the looking glass stuff when it comes to American politics. A Fed Gov with few powers at state level that can order mobilisation without conclusive proof of due cause; topsy-turvey.

Should we go or should we stay? North Vietnam took Saigon, yet South Vietnam is democratic. I think the longer we stay, the longer the path to resolution. Granted, it's resolution one way or the other, but at the very least we'll leave it as we found it; (eventually yet relatively quickly) in the hands of a despot. At best, Iraq might follow suit with South Vietnam. Either way, our troops don't need to be at risk, and we can stop pretending that we have the first clue what to do and the power to do it if we did. It's as Chechnya V Russia, imo; no win situation for the invaders. I get the vibe that you disagree, Rudi?

Sean
Rudi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Comments: 474
Rudi
Posted 04/24/07 - 2:32 PM:

I do believe that the entire exercise is futile, which is why I never would have gone in to begin with. But of course this is four years later and they are in and it is futile. Having said that it seems terribly unjust for the Americans to be able to go in, destroy a country in the name of making it better and then just leaving it to tear itself apart in what seems to be a terribly agonising way. I think the US owes the Iraqui people. Although it is plain to see that the military approach in Iraq is futile, I do believe that they need to continue to work towards a resolution that is a little more orderly than all-out civil war. As for US casualties, they are a small price to pay. For every US casualty there are more than 10 civillian Iraqui casualties. Dying is part of the job for a soldier, not so for school children and other civillians.

If it were up to me, given the current situation, I would propose a radical plan to precipitate what I think will happen anyway. I would impose a partition of Iraq along ethnic lines. I would limit input from the various factions. I would work with bordering countries such as Iran and Syria and Turkey. Once the boundaries were drawn I would have people move to their ethnically respective countries and then establish a buffer zone and maintain a security force along the borders of the new states. I would offer reconstruction aid to all three states and punich militarily any state that tried to incur on the other's territory. I would give Turkey special assurances that Kurdistan would be severly punished through NATO action if it tried to incur into Turkish territory and provide beefed up aid for Turkey's anti-terrorism efforts. I would also promise Iran to lay off its nuclear program in return for its help to stabilise the new states. Similalrly I would promise to normalise relations with Syria as a result of its help.

Unless the US begins to think in radical terms it will not be able to deal with the new reality. The problem is that the US is terribly unimaginative and risk-adverse at this stage.

Rudi


mixinman7
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Location: usa, OR

Total Topics: 4
Total Comments: 141
Posted 04/24/07 - 10:49 PM:

lets juxtapose an extreme. lets say i have created a single vaccine that will prevent every known disease that has and ever will exist. lets say i use this on myself knowing that it will spread like a virus vaccinating everyone who becomes infected with it. this virus has spread across the entire world. unfortunately, i start to display leprous symptoms. i can no doubt survive several years at least as no disease exist that can kill me, even with open wounds. it took 50 years for me to develop this "vaccine," now i have perhaps 3 years to live as i slowly fall apart. only 20% of the worlds populations seems to show the symptoms. other leading scientist are working on the solution to the flaws in this vaccine. is it my "responsibility" to do everything i can even to the moment of my death?

the answer seems to be obvious. yes. but try to really put yourself in those shoes. better yet, ask yourself: "would i willingly stay silent as i am being condemned to torture and death on a cross?" to be honest, you must admit that you would want to live no matter how noble your conceptions might be.

if the US has started a 500 year war in Iraq, is it our "responsibility" to stay there for the entire duration? if not, when is it to be considered that our "responsibility" has been met? how do we justify, if ever, our cause in pulling out?
JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
Posted 04/25/07 - 7:35 PM:

The US didn't go into Iraq to make it a better place, they went into Iraq to protect American economic interests. That mission was accomplished years ago. The hard part is withdrawing from a war you are fighting under false pretenses while preserving the illusion that your were there for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.
beans
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2007
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 9
Total Comments: 186
Avatar beans
Posted 04/26/07 - 6:50 AM:

"would i willingly stay silent as i am being condemned to torture and death on a cross?" to be honest, you must admit that you would want to live no matter how noble your conceptions might be.


Uh, isn't it a popular belief that the 'original' death on the cross that inspred the term in the first place was contrary to your 'to be honest' statement? smiling face
Rudi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2005

Total Topics: 44
Total Comments: 474
Rudi
Posted 04/26/07 - 6:50 AM:

JrnymnX wrote:
The US didn't go into Iraq to make it a better place, they went into Iraq to protect American economic interests. That mission was accomplished years ago. The hard part is withdrawing from a war you are fighting under false pretenses while preserving the illusion that your were there for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.



Very good point. I guess then we can only expect the Americans to keep up the ruse for so long before even they don't care what happens to the Iraqui people or what the World thinks... hmm

Rudi


Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.