|
Sqrl said: I'm honestly really disturbed that a thread with positive news about the war makes people feel the need to post as much negativity as they can. What is it about positive news for the US in Iraq that is so terrible that you guys have to attack it? |
(Sorry for typos, I'm at work)
Since this is my undergraduate major, I'm going to try not to make my answer too complex.
1. The U.S. has signed a whole bunch of international treaties, along with pretty much every other nation on the planet, to not commits unprovoked acts of aggression against one another or threatening the sovereignty or independence of another nation with out the unanimous backing of the UNSC veto powers and the majority vote of the general assembly or UNSC (with the GA transferring the power to the UNSC on a case to case basis).
(U.N. Charter, Articles 1, 2.4, 33, and 39; the GAR 3314; also covered by NATO Charter, WTO, et.al. for behavior of membership to the respective international organization. While nations are sovereign they are subject to Sanctions, Military Retaliation, or loss of trade, perks, membership, etc.)
2. While in this case I agree, I have to ask: what is winning? The definition has changed over time (which is perfectly fine) but it is never really clear. My idea of winning would be getting out of there as soon as possible with out the new Iraqi government collapsing or losing regional control to terrorist groups (like the U.S. and U.K. caused in every other Middle Eastern nation it occupied or controlled through puppet governments).
3. The war is really only a minor conflict in military terms. The state of the economy and the archaic infrastructure of the U.S. are higher priorities to me; Afghanistan is also higher. Might sound cold to the thousands of brave soldiers fighting over there, but it isn't as important to the overall state of the Union.
4. Insurgents are not terrorists. Insurgents are people who feel they are being left out of the governing of their own nation. Yes they have a democracy, with provincial elections coming up, but they are still held to the whims of the U.S. governments and are forced to allow a foreign occupation force to ignore local laws. Al Qaeda has been rejected by these militias. To answer your question, yes. I would. We leave and stop interfering, they stop fighting. The surge is not the only reason for reduction in violence (it's part), the main reason why violence went down was because the current party in power under al-Maliki has been standing up to the U.S. in recent months and flexing his own muscle providing a base for these "insurgents" to begin legitimate negotiation with him.
5. I am not unhappy with the news, so I can't answer for those people. The war is illegal, every time I read about it I get sick to my stomach that my country invaded another country causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and causing millions to live in poverty for years (far worse than the consequences of Hussein's actions; though not intentional nor evil). The irresponsible behavior of not protecting civilian populations in Iraq is a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention (1949/1950). Now there is improvement, which I am happy with because we are redeeming ourselves and it is time to work on leaving.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.







