US Out How? The Moral Dilemma of Leaving Iraq

[The Yankee]

Here's the whopper: the United States was once exactly where the Palestinians are now. We were subjected to religious persecution, fled our ancestral homeland, and were then subjected to a military occupation.

All sounds too familiar, don't it?

Do you see us Americans trying to reclaim our ancestral homelands in England and create the sovereign nation of Americastan? Committing suicide bombings against the British for their crimes against us? Nope.

We gave up on such things and made a life for ourselves somewhere else. And in return for our humility, we Americans were given dominion over the Earth.


Rather than complaining about the bad things we've done, people such as the Palestinians and Al-Qaeda should take us as an example. Quit beating on dead horses and get on with your lives.

That is about the worst analogy of the situation I have ever heard.

Why?

Grr, quoted the wrong post in the last quote, but whatever, the same question is still there. Let me try to tackle this.

First, though religious persecution was a factor in the settlement of the New World, it was much less of a grievance by the 1770s. But even so, that is far from the main point here.

Additionally, there were more than just British people inhabiting the colonies, which would make it distinct from the one Palestinian people opposing Israel today.

Further, the rallying call was "taxation without representation is tyranny," which is not anything like a "right of return" or "drive them to the sea." A call like the Revolutionary one may be comparable to a call in Palestine to be in the same country as Israel, with the representation due to them.

The grievances were against the King and the Parliament of Britain, not the government and people of Israel.

Once the British were driven out of much of the colonies and they withdrew the rest, that was the victory. In the case in the Middle East, once Israel withdraws from a place, the new goal is to take the next place.

The new Americans never claimed to be the rightful owners of Britain. A two-state solution worked much better than one may work with Israel and Palestine because there wasn't a large segment of the political and total population supporting a takeover of the other country. Once independence was won, we took it, and we never wished to control London. If it weren't independence, we wouldn't want control over London anyway, but a voice within it.

I think I covered most of it. I get the feeling those thin comparisons to early America with Iraq today were more fitting.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Strange. I never knew the English loved Amsterdam so much they decided to call nowadays New York, New Amsterdam. The comparisson also fall flat on it's face since in one case the parties are divided by an ocean, in the other case they're at each other's lip. So to pound your chest and claim: we are better people than the palestines, just look at how we handled ourselves in early America is inane at best. Now, if at this point, or at any point from the civil war untill now, Brittain decides (decided) to go back, claim a large piece of America and kick the Americans out, then you may have a point.

Allthough it still would be comparing apples with apple-like oranges.

 

[BasketCase]

Still waiting to hear about those atrocities...

Abuse by occupying British troops (by "abuse" I don't mean unfair taxation--I mean rape and murder).

An unjust legal system. The offenses here include the usual--overly zealous justice when a colonial was accused of a crime, lax justice when it was a lobsterback on trial, outright falsification of charges against innocent Yankees, blah blah. One of the crowning crimes against the American people was the practice of transporting American criminals overseas to England to face trial. And one of the infamous "Intolerable Acts" was a law stating that British troops would be tried in England instead of the Colonies when they committed a crime against Americans.

And to top it all off, you've got shootings of American civilians by British troops. The Boston Massacre is the one mentioned most in the history books, but it wasn't the only one.

 

[BasketCase]

The new Americans never claimed to be the rightful owners of Britain.

Already covered this--this is one of the ways in which we're better than the Palestinians. We didn't start a jihad in order to take "our" homeland back. We gave up and made a new home somewhere else.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And you were on a continent you could call your own. That helped a little in finding a new homeland.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I'd say we won the conflict cause the British had a much greater ( looking at the time in history ) and far more lucrative prospect in there sights.

India. All of it.

Now there were some crimes against humanity. The US and it's conflict looks like a skrmish in comparison.

 

[BasketCase]

Sounds a bit like Iraq doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

Errrrr.....except that there's no religious persecution.....we allowed the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial instead of porting him over to the States to try him ourselves.....it's the Iraqi flag instead of the American flag flying atop Baghdad.....we consider it wrong to shoot at civilians.....most of the civilians are getting killed by insurgents in the first place, and the few shootings by Americans are almost always accidents (Blackwater being a possible exception).....we allow their government to work in Iraq instead of forcing their delegates to travel to America (one Colonial grievance against Britain was that the British idea of "fair representation" forced Colonial representatives to travel to Britain and endure other abuses)......

Dude. Iraq doesn't sound like Colonial America in the least.

And you were on a continent you could call your own. That helped a little in finding a new homeland.

Only if your real purpose is to serve nationalistic pride by planting a flag on it.

There are a lot of Muslims living in the United States right now. And people from India and Pakistan and China and Afghanistan and many other troubled parts of the world. They came over here to make a new life. They get to live in peace, the police actually make a genuine effort to protect them, they get a voice in the government they live under, they get a chance at a good education.

You don't need your own continent or your own flag in order to make yourself a new home.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Only if your real purpose is to serve nationalistic pride by planting a flag on it.

There are a lot of Muslims living in the United States right now. And people from India and Pakistan and China and Afghanistan and many other troubled parts of the world. They came over here to make a new life. They get to live in peace, the police actually make a genuine effort to protect them, they get a voice in the government they live under, they get a chance at a good education.

You don't need your own continent or your own flag in order to make yourself a new home.

I thought we were talking about American colonists being better than palestinians because the American colonists didn't start a jihad in order to take "their" homeland (or is it their "homeland"?) back. They gave up and made a new home somewhere else.

But they allready had given up their home long time ago and allready had moved somewhere else to call their home. Somewhere they allready were. Somewhere they'd been for a while now. Somewhere they didn't have to pack up and leave. Somewhere they could walk and travel in freedom. Somewhere they could rule for themselves.

Their homeland allready was a free America. They bled for that land, they didn't bleed for England, Holland, Italy or Germany.

 

[BasketCase]

Exactly. They gave up their land in England and left.

Several years ago, the Palestinians did have pretty good living conditions. They'd built up their infrastructure, schools, public services. But the problem they kept obsessing about was that all the stuff they had was not in a place actually named "Palestine". They wanted a name and a flag. So they started firing rockets at Israel, and the resulting violence set the Palestinians back fifty years.

Maybe the Palestinians should give up on Palestine, and leave.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Key-Riced! It really is amazing. Well, in that case, enjoy your superiority.

I just remembered I have a game Hearts of Iron 2 waiting for me under alt-tab. It's october '40 and I'm keeping Jerry out of France playing the UK. Jolly good fun ol' chap. Pip pip. Ta ta!

 

[Rhye]

BasketCase, I really can't stop myself from telling you that you're really wrong in anything you say. But I have no desire to join the discussions. So, just to let you know.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Ziggy and BK obviously need to settle this in a HoI deathmatch, winner take all... least this will get somewere back on topic.

<flame removed>

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Che Guava]

Right...back on topic....


I think that leaving Iraq is going to have to be done gradually, and without too much fanfare. Any big withdrawl could cause instability, so a slow phase out would probably be the best answer. This would also be contingient on agreements with Iraq's neighbours to keep the current government intact. A regional consensus on Iraq's future and relations within the rest of the ME, even just in spirit, could help...