[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I am sure they have their political agenda, an agenda that happens to be supported by many Iraqi people.

I suppose, ultimately, it comes down to whether you think that, a people through collective interest wish to jump off a cliff; do you intervene to stop this catastrophe from happening, or not? Whether or not our intervention created that cliff or not, i think that there is some merit to "saving the people from themselves" as it were, in order to stave off some form of political or other oppression.

Furthermore there aren't that many foreign insurgents in Iraq as a percentage of the overall groups.

I dont have any statistics on this issue, so i cant comment.

Also please don't set up a false interpretation of my argument and then label it melodramatic, you are the one making up the drama.

No, that was me acknowledging that i was making a melodramatic statement, an exaggeration to highlight a point. It was not directed to you.

If you read what you quoted you will notice that I didn't put forward any reasons why they wanted the US out, its just clear that they do.

I am arguing that its pretty silly to be advocating a course of action without even speculating on what would happen if it came to pass.

If coalition troops withdraw, what happens in Iraq? What happens in other places that requires US defence agreements, namely Afghanistan, but also elsewhere around the world including Japan? In Iraq, i was speculating/postulating that what would happen is that it would come under some form of oppressive rule; as many fractured countries who have a dominant group tend towards. These rulers would not necessarily have popular support, but will tend to nevertheless be powerful because of their disposition.

A lot of the insurgents will be ordinary people who feel they cannot stand by and watch and occupying power steal their country. They are entitled to resources in Iraq, it is their country.

This is true; however if the fastest way to regain control of your contry is to NOT fight the occupier, who wants nothing more than to leave as soon as tehy can without leaving total anarchy behind, then it seems to me to be pretty silly to continue fighting. Having said that, i'm not an Iraqi in Iraq, so that is only speculation.

Your bit about war being in their interests is silly, because it is us who are prolonging the war, not them,

It takes two to tango, T&F; so saying that one side is to blame is a bit extreme, in my opinion. Frankly, both sides are in the wrong, and to what degree is largely irrelevent as assigning blame isnt really productive or conducive going forward.

Furthermore you are buying into the propaganda that they want to cause misery for everyone.

Propaganda goes both ways mate; I am pretty cynnical when it comes to the motives of people, i'm an economist in training. Would it not be equally correct to say that you are buying into the propaganda that if the coalition leaves then all the problems will be fixed and everything will return to a nice happy place? Frankly, neither is correct, it is somewhere in between.

Clearly they want wealth and education and so forth in their country, they are mostly ordinary people.

"They" depends. People tend to act in whatever means serves their own interests (sometimes people act in the collective interest, and there is research on this, but lets not go there for now). As such, the "ordinary citizen" desires safety, functional education systems, functional health systems and basic utilities such as water & electricity. Obviously, i have no problems with this; it makes sense and its a fantastic ideal that is too quickly forgotten in the West. However, i beleive that the "ordinary citizen" is more or less powerless when they are faced with more militant individuals. How often in history has the militant group dominated the pacifist group? As such, i think ultimately the country will be more or less controlled by "militant" groups of people, whose interest is not necessarily the same as those of the "ordinary citizen". Now, this is still the case in the West whereby politicians are to some degree interested in the power that their office holds, however our "ordinary citizens" tend to have some certain minimum standards that on a world scale are fairly high, and we know how to demand what we want from those in power; plus it helps that the powerful tend not to go around and shoot us if we dissent or demand fairness :\. In Iraq, i fear that this institution is not well developed, and as such there will be relevtively less resistance to it happening, thus increasing the probability that it will occur. If it occurs, i think it is a bad thing for the "ordinary citizens" of Iraq.

Even those people who would dream of ruling Baghdad with an iron Islamic fist would still have more right to be in Iraq than us.

In Iraq, yes probably; especially if they were Iraquis. However, who really has the right to involuntarily oppress others? And i think it would be fairly likely that anyone who rules with an "iron Islamic fist" will be oppressive towards someone or group at some stage.

How can you call the mullahs and muftis more power hungry than the US and the UK?

I never said that they were. I just worried about what would happen if they became successful.

Also if these muftis and mullahs do have power it can only be sourced from the Iraqi people so they would still be more legitimate than us.

Unlike you, i'm not quite so sure that the "Iraqi people" are a single homogeneous entity; rather as a collection of sheep and wolves for want of a better example. Sheep outnumber wolves by a large margin, however Wolves still dominate Sheep. Is it legitimacy that grants the transfer of power from the sheep to the wolves, or is it something else/ a collection of other things. Fear springs to mind. Having said that, its only when the interests of the wolves are different to those of the sheep for whatever reason, that you have problems.

The US and the UK certainly aren't present for the Iraqi national interest as even they themselves say, they are making the problem worse with their presence.

British Generals have said alot of stupid things in the past. Do a quick browse of Australian Military History for some examples.

Your entire argument is based on false premises:

Firstly that the US and the UK are interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people. This is plainly untrue unless we concur that the US and UK are extremely stupid.

Not really. My argument is more along the lines of the premise that those who have the power to take control in Iraq will probably not be very good for the "ordinary citizen", though i'm sure it will be absolutely fine for those in power. Just because x is the opposite of Z doesnt make z the opposite of x.

o_O

Secondly that the insurgents are one homogeneous group of fanatical Islamists.

Not quite; i understand that there are a variety of motivations for people to take up arms in Iraq; the saftey of their family and household, to enact positive political change, to reap vengenace of whatever racial group is next door, national identity and freedom, hatred of christians/americans/foreigners, religious reasons, palastine, personal loyalty, money, prestiege and power, etc.

What i believe is that ultimately, when its all over, those who have the strongest dispositions will probably be victorious. Of these insurgent type groups, i believe that the "fanatical Islamists" are probably the most hardy, and are thus the most likely to win over the other groups, at least in some areas. The implications of these people winning is probably bad for most of the "ordinary citizens" of Iraq who tend to be mostly secular. This is what i am concerned about.