I'll be the first to admit that I'm quite ignorant of the goings on in Iraq, so I apologise now... BUT...

Why are all our troops still there... is it to keep peace until the country is stable or does it run deeper into who controls the oil?

Does anyone know what ordinary Iraqi citizens want? And who are they being protected against? Is it the insurgents who want to claim  Iraq as its own? Will the "Iraq" resulted terrorism stop if we withdraw troops?

Thanks to whoever tackles these questions.

Why are all our troops still there... is it to keep peace until the country is stable or does it run deeper into who controls the oil?

The whole war was about control, primarily of the oil but to say it was a "war for oil" is a little simplistic.
Iraq will never have peace until it is no longer under occupation by a foreign enemy.  The US troops will stay there until the people accept the puppet government forced onto them, most people will soon give up and live with it, some people will never accept it.

Does anyone know what ordinary Iraqi citizens want? And who are they being protected against? Is it the insurgents who want to claim  Iraq as its own? Will the "Iraq" resulted terrorism stop if we withdraw troops?

More to the point, does anyone care?
The US regime doesn't even count civilian casualties, they certainly don't care about them.
The "insurgents" are also too free with their killing to be said to care.
I imagine that the ordinary Iraqis want what most people want, to live their lives in peace.
The "terrorism" in Iraq is an obvious consequence of the situation, the US left a power vacuum by removing the political leaders of Iraq.  This always leads to a rush to fill that vacuum, the US has its own candidate, as do the "insurgents". Both sides are using "terrorism" to endorse their own choice (The only difference is the insurgents use guerilla tactics as they are the inferior military force)

Will the terrorism stop if US troops leave?
Not for a while, but it cannot stop whilst they are there.  Their very presence is terrorism.

Compare the situation with "Vichy" France during WWII.
The Germans (Superior military force) conquered France and established a puppet regime (Under Marshall Petain).  Violence continued in the form of guerilla warfare.  This was carried out by the French resistance/Maquis with help from outside countries sympathetic to their cause.
Peace was only restored when the Germans were removed and the people of France got to control their own country.

<definition (Webster)>
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Terror: violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

Thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed. I always knew that the "inusrgents" feel they have no choice but to resort to terrorism cos they are almost powerless against the bigger army and feel no-one will take them seriously. We all react in horror when attrocities happen in countries we know and love, yet tend to forget that the same things happen every day in other countries. It really seems that it's a no win situation at the moment. I wish the country and it's innocent civilians all the best.

The American interest in Iraq is purely exploitative.  America is acting as an empire, meddling in the affairs of other nations for the financial gain of a few rich people.  The state of Iraq was born of empire.  Empire requires perpetual enforcement.  The "war" in Iraq is just a continuation of the imperial activities in the region going back over a century.  Saddam Hussein was a monster whose lineage we may trace to the Austro-Hungarian, British, and American empires.  He did not emerge from a vacuum.

The average American citizen and the average Iraqi citizen have something in common.  We are both pawns in a game played by the rich and the powerful.  All this talk of "good and evil" is just diversion and subterfuge.  The "war on terror" is only a biproduct.  It is not Americans versus Iraqis, nor is it Christianity versus Islam.  It is  private greed versus the public good, and this is so in every country involved in this mess.

We can stay in Iraq as long as we can replenish occupying forces, but we can never "win" this war.  There is no "war" to win, only imperial interests to enforce.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm quite ignorant of the goings on in Iraq, so I apologise now... BUT...

Why are all our troops still there... is it to keep peace until the country is stable or does it run deeper into who controls the oil?

Does anyone know what ordinary Iraqi citizens want? And who are they being protected against? Is it the insurgents who want to claim  Iraq as its own? Will the "Iraq" resulted terrorism stop if we withdraw troops?

Thanks to whoever tackles these questions.


Well, it is hard to say what "ordinary Iraqi citizens" want... I've heard many accounts of them wanting us to leave, and I've heard just as many accounts of them wanting us to stay.  But this is an endless cycle of "If the insurgents stop, we can bring our troops home" vs "If the US leaves, the insurgents can stop"

So, who should prevail... a non iraqi military or non iraqi insurgents??  Well, let's see... I don't see the insurgents rebuilding what they destroyed...  I don't see the insurgents trying to avoid killing innocent civilians...  I don't see the insurgents doing ANYTHING for the benefit of Iraqi's... they want a regime like Saddam's or worse...

And Maxwell, you say the "puppet government forced on them"... the originator of this thread stated he was not very knowledgable on the goings on in Iraq... you should mention that this "puppet government" was forced on them by hundreds of thousands of IRAQI VOTERS... as opposed to an "American-appointed" government which you imply...

Well, it is hard to say what "ordinary Iraqi citizens" want... I've heard many accounts of them wanting us to leave, and I've heard just as many accounts of them wanting us to stay.  But this is an endless cycle of "If the insurgents stop, we can bring our troops home" vs "If the US leaves, the insurgents can stop"

So, who should prevail... a non iraqi military or non iraqi insurgents??  Well, let's see... I don't see the insurgents rebuilding what they destroyed...  I don't see the insurgents trying to avoid killing innocent civilians...  I don't see the insurgents doing ANYTHING for the benefit of Iraqi's... they want a regime like Saddam's or worse...

And Maxwell, you say the "puppet government forced on them"... the originator of this thread stated he was not very knowledgable on the goings on in Iraq... you should mention that this "puppet government" was forced on them by hundreds of thousands of IRAQI VOTERS... as opposed to an "American-appointed" government which you imply...


I think Max got what "ordinary Iraqis" want, peace, security, maybe even freedom (as they understand it).  The problem is, there are none.  There are Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians, and they all want differnt things beyond those basics. 

I agree that the insurrgents will not "rebuild what they have destroyed", and think that some at least would build a Taliban-like muslim theocracy. 

Yes, the Iraqi government now drafting a constitution was elected by Iraqis, but that doesn't negate the possibility of it being a puppet.  None of us have any real idea re how much influence the US Embassy and the US high command on the scene "influence" what that government does.

Yes, the Iraqi government now drafting a constitution was elected by Iraqis, but that doesn't negate the possibility of it being a puppet.

Yep, it's amazing how many people are fooled by the myth of democracy.
The current UK government, supposedly a democracy, got the votes of 20% of the voting population (that's not including those who are inelligible to vote)
Sadam probably carried 20% support!
Secondly, you cannot have democracy/freedom from the barrel of a gun.  Iraq is still under enemy occupation, US troops still roam the streets and people are still being tortured to death in Abu Gharaib.  The Iraqi people are not in control of their country, no amount of spin or pretence of democracy will change that.

Yep, it's amazing how many people are fooled by the myth of democracy.
The current UK government, supposedly a democracy, got the votes of 20% of the voting population (that's not including those who are inelligible to vote)
Sadam probably carried 20% support!
Secondly, you cannot have democracy/freedom from the barrel of a gun.  Iraq is still under enemy occupation, US troops still roam the streets and people are still being tortured to death in Abu Gharaib.  The Iraqi people are not in control of their country, no amount of spin or pretence of democracy will change that.


True enough.  I'm sure though that there are Iraqis who would welcome an independant, secular state in control of its own destiny.  Such an outcome would be in everyone's interests.  Problem now, as I see it, is that a US pullout would lead to the creation of a Taliban-like theocracy, as I predicted even before we invaded.  That would be good for no one.