Iraq - time to pull out now George & Tony.

[JohnW]

In the absence of Acrylic Bob I will try to start a controversial thread which will hopefully throw up some good debate on a serious subject.

I really think it is time to bring home the boys. It is my opinion that they are now achieving little or nothing for the risks they are taking. Iraq is quite obviously not ready for any kind of democracy. They do not appear to understand it and there are too many people against it who are prepared to kill and maim in order to impede its progress. We are in a totally no-win situation out there and, although it is a different kind of war, it is fast turning into Vietnam 2. If we stay, I believe the present situation will continue into eternity. More and more of the indiginous population seem prepared to take up arms for 'their cause' against the causes of their fellow countrymen and our troops, whatever 'their cause' may be. I have no trust in any of the middle eastern countries and I'm quite sure that they have no trust in us either. So time to go. If we do pull out what is likely to happen?

People worry that the whole area will turn into some kind of power struggle with the likes of Iran and Syria probably coming out on top. Maybe they will. I am at the state when I consider it is non of our bloody business. Israel are strong enough to look after themselves and just need to pull in their heads and respond to any aggression perpetrated against them. It is time to let this area evolve with whatever wars are necessary for it to do so, just like Europe evolved over the last 500 years or so with war after war. Now we seem capable of living in uneasy peace with each other and maybe, in time, the middle east will do the same. Of course, there is always the oil which we need in the west in order to carry on our daily lives. Well, the only thing the whole area has to bring in any revenue is oil. You can bet your lives that they will find some way to continue those revenue streams, but if it means an oil shortage and that we have to start using smaller vehicles less often etc. then so be it. Such a situation would probably bring forth new technology, necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

I have the same thoughts about Afghanistan also. Pull them out. No occupying army has ever had any success in that country.

[shakermaker]

We can't pull out now we've made such a mess over there.
It's a lose/lose situation.

If we keep our boys there and try to maintain a state of calm and peace; there is every chance in the world that we're going to lose so many more lives of both Iraqis and members of the coalition.
If we take our troops out; holy hell will break loose. Many different sides fighting to take over power of Iraq - the country will become one big no man's land. Also, the innocent people of Iraq will feel let down by the Brittish and Americans - and that feeling along with a strong religion is not a good situation to be on the other side of, as many have learned.

[chav1]

the sooner we find an alternative to petrol the better , then we wont rely on these countrys at all and they can sort their own mess out

america stuck their noses in because of the oil

the UK stuck their noses in because bush told blair to

anyone who thinks we went to war with iraq over humanitarian issues or terrorist threat is a very naive person indeed , there are plenty of people that need our help more but because they have no oil we dont go in

anyway WAR = higher petrol prices or at least provides an EXCUSE to raise petrol prices

if i had children who were in the army and they refused to go to iraq i would be right behind them because i wouldnt want my children killed over a few barrels of oil which is what both iraq wars have been over

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

We can't pull out now we've made such a mess over there.
It's a lose/lose situation.

If we keep our boys there and try to maintain a state of calm and peace; there is every chance in the world that we're going to lose so many more lives of both Iraqis and members of the coalition.
If we take our troops out; holy hell will break loose. Many different sides fighting to take over power of Iraq - the country will become one big no man's land. Also, the innocent people of Iraq will feel let down by the Brittish and Americans - and that feeling along with a strong religion is not a good situation to be on the other side of, as many have learned.

The area was a mess before we went in. We need to learn from our mistakes and keep/pull our noses out of evolving situations. Holy Hell is loose already with different sides fighting to take over power in Iraq, despite our troops being there. They are just in the middle taking crossfire from all sides.

[Ber999T]

Chav has a good point in that the ones not fighting or not wanting to get involved will be that ones that get hurt the most and then we would be sending in troops to help them.

One option is to evacuate them out before pulling out but WHERE to?????. These people don't want to be uprooted and moved out of their own coutry but then again they should have to chance to live there without fear of being shot/blown up.

Yes I know that some of the troops being killed and wounded are British and that more are due to go out there on tour next year as replacements for those out there now.

I think that if these people wanted to they could stop the fighting and think about rebuilding their country.

However because of the different factions within their own relegion they can't find a common ground in order to start talking and stop the fighting.

Yes would love for ALL troops to come out and come home but that is not going to happen untill some sort of strong goverment is in place with their own troops doing the fighting on the non-goverment but then again that is CIVIL WAR and thats why OUR troops are there now to stop a CIVIL WAR!!!!!!!

[jambutty]

We went into Iraq on a lie. The lie being seeking weapons of mass destruction or has everyone forgotten that?

No WMD’s were found and at that point we should have pulled out. Unfortunately by the time that it became obvious that no WMD’s would be found it was too late and civil war was smouldering.

We have to stay and finish the job. However what our government MUST do is provide our troops with the right tools to do the job and protect themselves properly whilst doing it. Otherwise the 100 plus British soldiers and the thousands of Iraqi military and civilians killed would have died in vain.

I’m not quite sure how we managed to get embroiled in the Afghanistan conflict unless it was Tony being order by Bush to go in. I have a feeling that the Yanks poked their nose in because of the poppy industry and the heroin that it produces. I think that we should pull out of Afghanistan and bolster our troops in Iraq.

[mani]

the mistake ppl made was linking alqaeda to saddam hussain - in truth the two groups could not stand each other's philosophy. saddam did a much better job of crushin al quaeda than anyone cud in iraq. saddam was long paralysed from the sanctions and george wanted to finish off daddys war. with saddam removed ppl were able to openly group together under the al qaeda banner thus the membership of that grew far greater than it ever wud have done.

to leave it now wud b a disaster not for iraq but for everyone. its too late to just leave it as it is. no one wants to step in to take over - the fact they went against united nations and did this is now biting them back cause if one group cud've got some respect and control it wud've been united nation peacekeepin forces.

they need to solve the cure to all this middle east and that lies in palestine adn israel but whilst america turns around to this problem it will never be solved

when clinton tried to solve this problem things had really quietened down. al qaeda began as a b**t**d child of america foreign policy that it wanted to disown but now has turned 18 and is biting back.

remove tony. remove george and then some one might b able to see a road out of iraq

[cherokee]

[quote=jambutty]We went into Iraq on a lie. The lie being seeking weapons of mass destruction or has everyone forgotten that?

No WMD’s were found and at that point we should have pulled out. Unfortunately by the time that it became obvious that no WMD’s would be found it was too late and civil war was smouldering.

We have to stay and finish the job. However what our government MUST do is provide our troops with the right tools to do the job and protect themselves properly whilst doing it. Otherwise the 100 plus British soldiers and the thousands of Iraqi military and civilians killed would have died in vain.

I’m not quite sure how we managed to get embroiled in the Afghanistan conflict unless it was Tony being order by Bush to go in. I have a feeling that the Yanks poked their nose in because of the poppy industry and the heroin that it produces. I think that we should pull out of Afghanistan and bolster our troops in Iraq.[/


I completely agree with this .we did go there on a lie and unfortunatly our boys dont have the right tools for the job.but we must be seen to finish the job we went to do ...My son is in the british army and he has done both of these countries and soon to be going back to one of them and his attitude to it is he has a job to do and will do it to the best of his ability but painstakingly from a mother s point of view, it is hell on earth for me when he is over there i wont even watch the news . he tells me not to worry but like any other parent whose children are out there its just not going to happen...so yes lets get them back but let them do what they can to restore some normality if possible before we do ....god only knows we owe it to the lads that have died out there

[SPUGGIE J]

They made a mistake in the first Gulf War of not finishing what they had started. To do they same IMHO would be a disaster and could lead along with the Israeli/Hesbohla fracas to so much instability that we could end up in a bigger pile of cow pats.

[g jones]

First of all Blair and the Labour Party were wrong to go into Iraq IMO though I thought it was not a black and white decision. The war began did it not because of Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions leading up to article 1441 of the UN and, although seemingly a legal war (1441 he 'had to be disarmed by force'), IMO the whole situation was massaged for a Bush-White House conclusion.

Blair has a tendency to always want his own way and I think he crossed the line to achieve this. He 'sexed up' the dossier against Saddam and that for me was the end of him as a credible Prime Minister - he stopped representing the Labour Party in order to represent the Tony Blair Party. He misled the country on the 45 minute warning particularly, and grossly overstated the threat with reckless abandon. He then mauled the BBC for slightly sexing up the case against the Government (in general & The Today programme) and IMO had an unhealthy involvement in the whole David Kelly suicide/Hutton tragedy.

It is right to question whether Bush's attitude was one of 'unfinished business' rather than a logical one. That American foreign policy was rooted in the last century reinforcing the view of the US as the bully boy of the world. Hugo Chavez said that much as recently as last month.

The arguments against the war gathered momentum and Blair tried to reclaim the moral high ground referring to the '300,000 butchered by Saddam', echoed by others. Controversially this was not the reason for war in article 1441 and as laid before Parliament. I think the lack of intervention against 'Dr Kananga' and his Zanu PF party in Zimbabwe, which was as pressing a humanitarian issue, exposed Blair's moving arguments and goal post shifting.

Links with Al Quaeda were also dragged out as reasons. There is no evidence to substantiate any connection between Al Quaeda and Saddam.

IMO the issue was about national security for the UK in a wider regional sense, Iran, Syria, the brutal Saddam junta and their political, regional and religous ambitions. Interventionists (Bush Blair) had a point in putting the brakes on Iraq becoming part of a bigger Middle East problem.

I believe discussions for war took place between the UK and US long before 1441 (Nov 2002) and Washington was 'planning the (continued) war on terror' as early as July 2002 (Invasion March 2003).

What was neglectful about Blair's stance was the relaxation of the economic embargo, the Oil for Aid programme in the 90's. Saddam's reign was ending prior to that. Weighty evidence now exists outlining the destruction of Saddam's WMD capacity through a lack of resources, funding, knowledge brought about by the embargo. Why did Hans Blick find nothing?

The OfA programme allowed The French, Chinese and Russians the opportunity to secure their own energy supplies though illicit payments to Saddam (highlighted by the UN), but it enabled Saddam to survive politically and to subsequently postulate a perceived threat to West, though his WMD development had been put back 10 years. The Oil for Aid programme was the biggest mistake. Instead of 1441, reintroduction of blanket sanctions could have removed Saddam in time.

Like Northern Ireland we were at a high risk of geting caught in a three cornered fight, fighting sectarian groups with historic prejudices looking to fill the power vacuum and who use the pools of resentment against the occupying forces to further their own ends.

Wars bring death and destruction. Every Iraqi death must have a reason or an answer. That reason or answer will usually ferment against the Coalition forces. Every family member of that fatality will add to the pool of resentment. Each death makes the war harder to win. Abu Ghraib and war attrocities, overlooked by politicians at the outset, were inevitable, but never factored in. I think the pyschological war, the so called hearts and minds campaign, was lost before it started with a policy of accepting colateral civilian deaths.

There has been an absence of any exit strategy, the question is did Bush & Blair believe in themselves so much they ignored any consideration for a problematic outcome. The only exception was Bush's reconstruction billions. Favouring US Contractors with financial connections to the White House (eg HaleBurton) Bush demonstrated there was nothing fair or ethical about his actions, even if he dressed it up legally. Plus the fact the so called reconstruction billions have now dried up. The perception that Bush played to the home crowd, right wing republican religious fanatics, patriotic loons and the US Economy decreased the chance of peace in Iraq and in a much wider sense.

Pulling out now runs the risk as the original post said of a bloodbath. If it doesn't produce a bloodbath it will certainly produce an oligarchy of corrupt, violent leaders only to willing to fill the political vacuum for their own ends.

I believe we have to stay and look at better local management. More UN troops, if anyone will commit. Especially muslim troops such as Pakistan, Saudi, Egypt and possibly the emerging Lebanesse Army (who can't fight Hizbollah). Less of a frontline presence and a reduction in combat operations in favour of civilian operations. Nationalisation of oil and gas with municipal rather than governmental receipts.

The mistake made was (and still is) to misjudge the Middle Eastern issue. A 'clash of civilisations' and the right to self determination. US democracy is good for a McDonalds at every intersection but what happens if you don't want a consumer society or believe pluralist politics is tyranny through the back door? The Middle East doesnt just want the US Government to butt out, but significant parts of the 'American Way of Life' too.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by g jones

I I believe discussions for war took place between the UK and US long before 1441 (Nov 2003) and Washington was 'planning the war on terror' as early as July 2003 (Invasion March 2004).



I believe we have to stay and look at more micro management. More UN troops if anyone will commit. Especially muslim troops..pakistan... and Lebanon. ?

My my my....what a hotch-potch of half-baked conspiracy theories, wishful thinking and watered-down municiple socialism. What a shame that the few facts that Graham threw in to support his case are completely and utterly wrong.

Coalition forces entered Iraq on March 20th, 2003...not 2004;the phase "War on Terror" came into mainstream usage in the days following 11h september 2001 and I do believe that the Lebanese army currently has more important priorities to foreign expeditions.

I do trust that Mr Jones will be a little better at sorting out fact from fiction should he ever replace the Dear Leader Britcliffe as council leader.

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

My my my....what a hotch-potch of half-baked conspiracy theories, wishful thinking and watered-down municiple socialism.

I do trust that Mr Jones will be a little better at sorting out fact from fiction should he ever replace the Dear Leader Britcliffe as council leader.

I only added to a discussion, its a messageboard not Mastermind. I am not perfect. I mistakingly switched the dates. I have corrected it. There is no need to continue being a 'Labour hater' Tealeaf.

I would suggest a more relaxed view in future for your own wellbeing.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Graham, could you enlighten me in what 'sexing up' a document is exactly.
I hate this phrase, because to me it means absolutely nothing.

[g jones]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Graham, could you enlighten me in what 'sexing up' a document is exactly.
I hate this phrase, because to me it means absolutely nothing.

mmmmm... I used it because it was used at the time and synonymous with the 45 mnute document.

I suppose it is a clever combination of two things; a euphemism for exageration merged with the maxim 'sex sells'.

When it was used it was inverted to demean the '45 minute' report, as in "sex selling" is the lowest cheapest form of persuasion. And "sexing it up" as the lowest cheapest form of persuassion exagerated. I dunno?

[chav1]

Originally Posted by g jones

.

I would suggest a more relaxed view in future for your own wellbeing.

lol why do i get visions of the labour party turning up at T-Leafs house with baseball bats