Comments:General Petraeus: 30,000 troops may be able to leave Iraq by next summer
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
This is good for everyone, less troops on the line, a more independent Iraq, less violence; but it seems the dems want to pull all troops out as soon as physically possible, leaving Iraq a wasteland. If you think Iraq is dangerous now, wait until the dems pull out before the job is done, there would be mass executions and all kinds of oppression; a lot of people (certainly not most) are safe in Iraq now, leaving too early would reduce that number to nil. I can't stand anti-war protesters, they don't see the big picture and that leaving Iraq before the job is done would mean many more deaths. There are many civilian deaths in Iraq now, do you want to see that everywhere? And as for the allied soldiers, they are voluntarily soldiers, which is more than I can say for the civilians the enemy wants to murder; that is what a real hero is, someone who will put their life on the line to protect innocents. I want to see the troops out of Iraq too, but in victory. I hope I didn't offend anyone, war is bad, but it is not like we actually have a choice. War came to our doorstep, choosing not to fight would mean that the things we take for granted in the civilized world, would be lost. 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Before the Americans arrived in 2003, Iraq was held together by the actual and threatened violence of the Baath party. Because the population lived in justified fear, actual violence was rarer than it is now and society was orderly. Life was bad for the Kurds, not-so-bad for the rest of the population, who had a relatively civilized lifestyle. Compared to the people in many countries in the middle east, Iraqis were healthy, affluent, and free from religious oppression. Women held jobs and were well-educated. The greatest obstacle preventing most Iraqis from continuing to improve their standard of living was US sanctions. Had the sanctions been lifted, Iraq would eventually have evolved beyond the need for totalitarianism.
Now, the best hope for lasting peace is partition: America should vow to defend Kurdistan from Turkey, and allow the oil-poor Baghdad-centered Sunni area to annex itself to Iran. The remainder of Iraq (South and West of Baghdad) should be allowed to form a mainly Shiite Islamic state. The Shiites should be allowed to take most of country's oil reserves with them as compensation for their years under Sunni repression and American/British greed.
This outcome would be undesirable from a US point of view. It would drive a lasting wedge between the US and Turkey, strengthen Iran, and the remainder of Iraq would likely nationalize its oil industry, excluding US contractors. It would, however, be in the best interests of the people in Iraq.
- I think you forgot something: The terrorists need to be stopped. Iraq isn't the only place they cause chaos, it is just were most of them come to do it. And you can't just split up a nation like that, I am sure that many Iraqis would take objection to that. Contralya 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)