• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shiites call for U.S. to leave Iraq

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"Tens of thousands is a lot of people in a country the size of Iraq. Plus the Shia are the majority. It would seem that we have NOT one the hearts and minds of the people. If you were in charge what would you do now?

By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Tens of thousands of Shiites — a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags — rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug

The protesters marched about three miles between the holy cities of Kufa and Najaf to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. In the capital, streets were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.
Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered up the march as a show of strength not only to Washington but to Iraq's establishment Shiite ayatollahs as well.
Al-Sadr, who disappointed followers hoping he might appear after months in seclusion, has pounded his anti-American theme in a series of written statements. The most recent came on Sunday, when he called on his Mahdi Army militia to redouble efforts to expel American forces and for the police and army to join the struggle against "your archenemy."
The fiery cleric owes much of his large following to the high esteem in which Shiites hold his father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated in 1999 by suspected agents of

Saddam Hussein. Al-Sadr dropped from view before the start of the latest Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. U.S. officials say he is holed up in

Iran. His followers insist he's returned to Najaf.
Fearing suicide attacks, car bombings or other mayhem in the capital, Iraq's generals ordered all vehicles off the streets for 24 hours starting at 5 a.m. Monday, normally a work day. The capital was eerily quiet, shops were shuttered and locked and reports of sectarian violence fell to near zero.
Police and morgue officials reported finding just seven bodies dumped in the capital, only the second time the number of sectarian assassination and torture victims had dipped that low in the course of the Baghdad security operation. A total of 25 people were killed or found dead in the country Monday, according to police and morgue reports.
A double line of police cordoned the marchers' route from Kufa to Najaf, sister cities on the west bank of the Euphrates River. The holy places, 100 miles south of Baghdad, are a prime destination for Shiite pilgrims.
Among the snapping flags and giant banners, leaflets fluttered to earth, exhorting the marchers in chants of "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."
Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in al-Sadr's Najaf organization, called the rally a "call for liberation. We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty."
And the head of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, Nassar al-Rubaie, blasted the U.S. presence as an affront to "the dignity of the Iraqi people. After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."
A key Washington official saw it differently.
"Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions," Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said aboard Air Force One. "And while we have much more progress ahead of us — the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do — this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."
Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman and aide to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, praised the peaceful demonstration and said Iraqis "could not have done this four years ago."
Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd of marchers which stretch for at least three miles and was led by a dozen turbaned clerics, a Sunni Muslim among them. Many marchers, especially youngsters, danced as they moved through the streets, littered with balloons.
Brig. Abdul Kerim al-Mayahi, the Najaf police chief, said there were as many as 600,000 in the march, although other estimates were significantly lower. He said 30 lawmakers made the hike and there was no American troop presence except surveillance from helicopters hovering above.
Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that "mistakes were made" after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.
"The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces," Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television.

con't here:
Shiites call for U.S. to leave Iraq - Yahoo! News
 
I'm proud that they have the freedom to speak their mind, even if it is (ironically) against the very country who gave them that freedom. I hope they're right, that we're more part of the problem than the solution and that the best thing for Iraq is for us to withdraw, because that will probably happen soon.
 
They certainly would not have been able to do that under Saddam.
 
Yeah, they wouldn't have been able to do that before, but it still doesn't bode well for our "mission". If the people want us out of Iraq, we'll have to leave. We can't occupy against the wishes of the people of that country. It's great that they can protest, but maybe they're just tired of getting pushed around and just want to do things their way. Which, of course, isn't going to be some pleasant, secular, democratic Republic as we would have like to install.
 
I don't know how many of you read Iraqi blogs, but I do. I have since I realized they were online. The blogs, written by real people in Iraq (not reporters, not politicians, not military) gave me an insight that I never could have gotten otherwise. They were, in huge part, the reason my opinion changed about the war.

Should we get out now that they're demanding we do? OF COURSE. We should have gotten out ages ago. We have torn that country apart from the inside out. Not Saddam. Not Al-quada. Not Osama. WE DID IT.

This is a quote from a blog written by a woman in Iraq. I've been reading her blog for years now.

And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.

Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.


You know your country is in trouble when:
- The UN has to open a special branch just to keep track of the chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI.
- Abovementioned branch cannot be run from your country.
- The politicians who worked to put your country in this sorry state can no longer be found inside of, or anywhere near, its borders.
- The only thing the US and Iran can agree about is the deteriorating state of your nation.
- An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country's 'Golden Years'.
- Your country is purportedly 'selling' 2 million barrels of oil a day, but you are standing in line for 4 hours for black market gasoline for the generator.
- For every 5 hours of no electricity, you get one hour of public electricity and then the government announces it's going to cut back on providing that hour.
- Politicians who supported the war spend tv time debating whether it is 'sectarian bloodshed' or 'civil war'.
- People consider themselves lucky if they can actually identify the corpse of the relative that's been missing for two weeks.

A day in the life of the average Iraqi has been reduced to identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs and attempting to keep track of which family members have been detained, which ones have been exiled and which ones have been abducted.



A quote from another young female Iraqi blog

The other horrible news I heard was that my friend's niece who is few months younger than Aya died when she was a sleep without any reason, she wasn't sick or something.
That news make me crazy and seeing my friend make me feel horrible. whenever she talked to me I began to cry and she began to cry. I don't know what to say to her. I know how much she loved her niece and how much it's hard to her to lose her. she said some words that make me shiver. she said that when she remembers her niece she feel like if there is someone taking her heart away and then turning it to it's place. you know that was exactly what I feel when I think of Baghdad and remember how much beautiful it was and how much we were happy in Saddam's time.



So when anyone asks, "Should we get out?" My only answer is a resounding YES. We have done too much damage. We cannot fix what we have done. We cannot win the 'hearts and minds' of these people in the face of our own atrocities. We just can't.

Now they're demanding we leave. What would I do if I were in charge? I would have left a long time ago.
 
rivrrat said:
Should we get out now that they're demanding we do? OF COURSE. We should have gotten out ages ago. We have torn that country apart from the inside out. Not Saddam. Not Al-quada. Not Osama. WE DID IT.

No, you are wrong. We did not tear the country apart. Our mistakes did set the stage and make it possible for AQI and the Sunni insurgents to tear it apart. But there is hope. In Anbar province, a group of Sunni tribles have come together to form a coalition to fight AQI alongside the Iraqi Army and the US military. From a recent article on their efforts:

About 25 Sunni tribes from Anbar have formed an coalition -- Anbar Awakening -- to take on the militants, largely from the Al-Qaeda network, who are operating in the western province.

These tribes have been sending thousands of young men to join the government security forces or their paramilitary units to cooperate with US and Iraqi commanders to fight insurgents.

In response, the insurgents have launched attacks on them and modified their tactics to add gas bombs to their arsenal.

On Friday, bombers detonated three dirty bombs in Anbar province poisoning 350 civilians, six American soldiers and killing two policemen.

If you are not already doing so, you might also read Iraq the Model, a very good blog from Baghdad.
 
They certainly would not have been able to do that under Saddam.

Iraqis were free to chant anti-American slogans under Hussein if he ordered them to do it (just as Al-Sadr did) as well. This demonstration does not indicated any newly existing Iraqi freedom.

My guess is a demonstration against al-Sadr would not have been tolerated very long, and such demonstrators would have ended up dead within 48 hours.
 
They certainly would not have been able to do that under Saddam.

Sure they would and in the last days before the invasion he would have paid them to demonstrate against the Americans and the Brits and any other "dirty foreigners". It was good when we were just "dirty foreigners" now were "dirty infidels" and that's far worse.


We gave them the right to demonstrate against their own leaders and they have improved on that by, not just demonstrating against them, but killing the hell out of them as well. That's American democracy as interpreted by Iraqis. Good Fooking job.

Actually there are freer in that respect than we are. I mean if NP tried to kill John Edwards he'd go to prison for the rest of his life.
 
Iriemon said:
Iraqis were free to chant anti-American slogans under Hussein if he ordered them to do it (just as Al-Sadr did) as well. This demonstration does not indicated any newly existing Iraqi freedom.

Inuyasha said:
Sure they would and in the last days before the invasion he would have paid them to demonstrate against the Americans and the Brits and any other "dirty foreigners".

My bad! I was not referring to the shouting of anti-American slogans. I was referring to the reported 10,000 Shiia congregating and marching, what was it, about three miles, with a double line of police to protect them?

Moreover, being "ordered...to do it" by Saddam is hardly equivalent to the same order coming from al Sadr.

I seem to recall Saddam's sons reportedly/allegedly killed several Shiia clergy who were calling for a similar effort (if you wish, I'll see if I can resurrect that link).

Therefore, IMO, it most certainly does represent a "newly existing Iraqi freedom." But, of course, thats just my opinon and as always, YMMV.
 
When the elected government of Iraq asks to leave we will do so..........
 
When the elected government of Iraq asks to leave we will do so..........



Yeah, screw the people it's all about governments.

Also, I don't believe that we'd leave at that time either.
 
It's not a coincidence that Iraqi Shiites are attending large anti-U.S. protests just as Iran is ratcheting up its interferences with coalition efforts there.

Iranian clerics lead all the militias, Iranians run the death squads, Iranian agents have repeatedly been caught working with the terrorists, and Iranians manufactured this "civil war."
 
Last edited:
yes....all the people. People also "elected" Saddam.
 
When the elected government of Iraq asks to leave we will do so..........


That is not the question my neo-con friend. The very first question is: "Who asked us in there in the first place?".

In WWI we were asked by a coalition of nations to go to Europe., In WWII we were directly attacked in the Pacific and asked again by a European coalition to lend our services.

In Korea we were asked to come in by the Government of South Korea. In Viet Nam we were asked in by the South Viet Namese government. In Iraq we were asked by no one. We just busted the door down. This involvement along with the Mexican War of 1845 is our only real disgrace in our history. We are no different than Japan in China, Italy in Abyssinia, Germany in Poland and the USSR in Finland. We are aggressors.
 
That is not the question my neo-con friend. The very first question is: "Who asked us in there in the first place?".

In WWI we were asked by a coalition of nations to go to Europe., In WWII we were directly attacked in the Pacific and asked again by a European coalition to lend our services.

In Korea we were asked to come in by the Government of South Korea. In Viet Nam we were asked in by the South Viet Namese government. In Iraq we were asked by no one. We just busted the door down. This involvement along with the Mexican War of 1845 is our only real disgrace in our history. We are no different than Japan in China, Italy in Abyssinia, Germany in Poland and the USSR in Finland. We are aggressors.

Wrong again my left wing whacko friend. The subject is Shiites ask us to leave.......oh and by the way that is the Sadr Shiites...........
 
What ****ing planet are you from? Here is a flash for you........Saddam was a dictator..

But he still had "elections" that elections can always be rigged and fixed.

Of course the post Saddam election have been much better and of course a step towards democracy. But you who belive so much in the elections maybee can help me by answerig some question:

That did the parties that won the election say about American soldiers staying in Iraq, before the election? How much was other important issues like the sell out of Iraqei oil discussed?

How much popular support have the new Iraqie goverment? And how efficiently do you belive that they have done the job? How liked are the American precence?

How much influence do you belive that the civil war (or if you like to be jolly: the troubles) and the American precence have on goverments decision making?
 
What ****ing planet are you from? Here is a flash for you........Saddam was a dictator..

Der

You see the quotes? It wasn't a proper election which put him in, just like the government we set up for them isn't a proper government which would represent the governed. So we set up a government, we let them vote on it (yay!) and then we say when the government we set up says to get out we'll leave. Meanwhile, the people are telling us to get out, but we aren't actually going to listen to what they say.
 
Der

You see the quotes? It wasn't a proper election which put him in, just like the government we set up for them isn't a proper government which would represent the governed. So we set up a government, we let them vote on it (yay!) and then we say when the government we set up says to get out we'll leave. Meanwhile, the people are telling us to get out, but we aren't actually going to listen to what they say.

How dare you say it was not a legal election.........Seventy percent of the people in Iraq voted under threat of death............Man/woman you are really losing all creditability.........
 
Not exactly concerned with whether or not you think my arguments are "credible" or not, they are mine to make. But I fear that you missed my point, I'm not saying it wasn't great they voted or that it was somehow illegal. Saddam's election wasn't exactly "illegal" either...it was just a farce. We set up a government and allowed them to vote on it. It was great that they could vote, and that they braved possible death to do so. But all government derives its authority from the governed, thus the Iraqi government is 100% up to the Iraqi people to make. We have no authority to make a government for them or to support a government for them as we are not part of the governed. I don't think they would have their current government if left to their own devices, and as such it doesn't represent the people's wishes for their government; for their happiness and security. We went in, overthrew a government without a declaration of war, we set up a government and let them vote on it. Now we want to claim that we don't have to leave till the government we created says we have to. It's sorta a Catch 22 there, it could very well be that the people of Iraq on the whole do want us to leave. But their government doesn't exactly represent the whole of their populace, so we stay; perhaps against the wishes of the people, till we feel that we should leave.

It's not exactly the greatest of situations, and a lesson towards occupation of foreign lands.
 
Back
Top Bottom