Is it time to pull out of Iraq?

JohnW · 04-06-2004, 11:13

Every day on the news now we hear reports of our coalition soldiers being killed and wounded. There have now been more fatalities for US soldiers since the main battle than there were during it. I know that many people believe we should never have gone there in the first place but the fact is we are there. Is it now time to pull out and leave them to their own devices? If we did, what would happen? Would we see another dictator come to power? Does anyone think that we can give them a democracy and that they will know what to do with it? Are they fit to govern themselves? Is this now just a criminal waste of coalition lives? Is there really any answer to the problems of the region or are we stuck with the mayhem forever?

Ceejache · 04-06-2004, 12:02

The coalition forces that are there do not seem to be wanted by the majority of Iraqis so I say leave and let them get on with it. However I fear civil war would erupt, what with the radical shi'as and all that carry on. Another point is - al-queda are obviously behind much of the anti-coalition attitude in Iraq, would they see it as a victory if we left now.

There really is no hope of peace on this earth until all religion is abolished anyway.....

Tealeaf · 04-06-2004, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnW

Is there really any answer to the problems of the region or are we stuck with the mayhem forever?

We're stuck with it,John...people have the idea that wars have neat & ordered endings.....unfortunatly, unless you totally oblierate your enemy, that is rarely the case. Historically, I can think of only the defeat of Germany, Japan & Argentina as wars that have produced a clear ending.

As for democracy in the middle east - forget it. There is only one democracy in the region and that's Israel. There is not one muslim country I can name which is a democracy, anywhere....in fact, I've just been reading the Evening Telegraph website. It seems our muslim friends have been up to some dodgy goings on with the postal vote...in Blackburn. So much for democracy. Aparently the cops are not pressing charges - they have more important things to do, like stopping motorists & telling them to remove the Cross of St George.

Acrylic-bob · 04-06-2004, 20:14

The whole reason for going to war in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, is to give American oil companies more control over the supply of oil. They need to keep control of it to keep the edge over China. Blair's stated reasons for going into Iraq are seen in this light as outright lies. It was never about weapons of mass destruction, or charitable concern for the oppressed masses of Iraq. That was just window dressing, to make a geopolitical necessity palatable to the public. For this reason do not expect to see and end to this 'war' in your lifetime. If anything you can expect to see it spread. Saudi Arabia is the next favourite venue for intervention. The increase in terrorism in that country provides the beginings of a pretext for invasion. America is on high alert for a terrorist attack this summer to coincide with the US Presidential elections. Such an attack will put the final seal on the plans. Can you imagine what the response of the muslim world would be to an American led invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Ceejache · 04-06-2004, 20:50

Bob wrote - Can you imagine what the response of the muslim world would be to an American led invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Yes I can.....and I fear that Bush and Blair are leading us a merry dance into a war that we cannot win (if there is such a thing as winning a war...). History has shown that guerilla warfare has always been a difficult thing to tackle...add to that undoubted attacks 'from within' and it spells disaster. The lack of support for the 'war' from within both countries had not been helped by the fact that other countries with appalling betrayals of 'democracy' and terrible human rights records have not been targeted by the 'coalition' eg. Zimbabwe and Mugabe's crew.

We must not give in to terroism, of that we surely all agree? Yet, even though these islamic fanatics don't need a reason to take out their grievances on innocents, I beleive they (Bush/Blair administrations) are forcing a deadly serious issue. The lack of support from other nations will isolate us and we WILL be the sole targets.

Ceejache · 04-06-2004, 20:54

Forgot to ask.

Obviously the main exporters of oil are the middle east countries - but couldn't we get by ok on oil coming from the North Sea, USA and the old Soviet Union. If not then maybe the time has come to SERIOUSLY look into some other form of energy production. I'm not an expert but surely there is some alternative - nuclear fusion? That way we are independent of the trouble zones.

Acrylic-bob · 04-06-2004, 22:03

The Afghanistan War was staged to assist in routing the pipeline from the Russian's Caspian Field to the Indian Ocean any other direction would have been too expensive. The Taliban would not play ball and so had to go. Pakistan, seeing which was the wind was blowing, was prepared to be more pliable and so escaped with it's nuclear weapons intact.

The oil reserves in the US are falling, as are the reserves in the North Sea. There is still plenty of oil out there but it is becoming less economicaly viable to extract it.

As China grows in economic importance, taking over the role of 'The workshop of the world' it will demand more of a dwindling resource. Us Oil companies are concerned to protect their grotesque profits and have no intention of allowing China a free ride. Thus it is necessaryfor them, either overtly or covertly, to control the supply.

I notice that Libya has also decided to play ball with the US.

Nuclear Fusion as a means of generating electricity is dangerous and leaves a legacy of nuclear waste that will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. The dream of Nuclear Fission providing unlimited energy from water and saving all our ****s, is just that, a dream. For reasons best known to the Chancellor and the Oil Companies research into obtaining energy from renewable sources, ie wind waves and sunshine, is so poorly funded as to make little or no impact.

So you see the oil companies need to keep us using oil to protect their profits and they are not above using those profits to stifle research in order to keep holding us over their oil barrel.

Ceejache · 05-06-2004, 09:28

Sorry - I did actually mean nuclear fission, not fusion...I get the two mixed up at times. Thanks for the feedback.

KIPAX · 05-06-2004, 10:05

We (UK) stuck our noses in where it wasn't wanted.. What right had we (UK) to go attack another country that had done nothing to us (UK)... Because they might have done somehting to us? DUH!

Now we will suffer the consequences.

Sorry but I ahve a very simplistic view on life

Bazf · 05-06-2004, 14:46

The Taliban were formed by Pakistan to fight against the Russians the theory being that to get young men to fight they had to have something to belive in, ie Islam, after the Russains pulled out Pakistan had no problem with the Taliban doing what they wanted in Afganistan as it kept the war lords down and promoted Islam in a fundmentilist way with Pakistan being the moderate country. Al quida was formed to help the Afganies fight against the Russians and because of its money and beliefs was protected by the Taliban, dont forget that the cold war was still going and the Russians were the enemy to most of the world,it was another 12yrs before Al Quida went globel the reason the Americans went in to Afganistan is nothing to do with oil or routing of pipe lines it was because of 9/11, now 3yrs later they are looking at rerouting and it was only brought up by the French and Germans who can get a bigger share of the work if it goes through the Asia route.
should we leave Iraq? no,
should we have gone in yes but in1991 (the first Gulf War.)

JohnW · 07-06-2004, 11:42

OK obviously mixed ideas on this. If we stay though, what are we actually achieving now? Also, I've asked this question before, if this is all about oil, what are we actually getting out of it. We are not pinching Iraq's oil are we? The war is costing us a bloody fortune so where is the profit for us?

Just a further thing to ponder also. The disruption of oil supply would affect the US more than any other country. I concede that. But please don't forget, if the western world's economies go up the spout, so does the rest of the world. So really, it is as important to any country in the world, who trades with Europe and the Americas, to keep things moving and keep the oil flowing. Why should the whole world be held to ransom by a few middle eastern countries, which, but for western technology, ie. the internal combustion engine, would still be grubbing around in the sand catching lizards for their dinner. The only reason they have anything at all is because they happen to be sat on large underground lakes of the stuff that keeps western industry moving.

Tealeaf · 07-06-2004, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIPAX

We (UK) stuck our noses in where it wasn't wanted.. What right had we (UK) to go attack another country that had done nothing to us (UK)... Because they might have done somehting to us? DUH!

Now we will suffer the consequences.

Sorry but I ahve a very simplistic view on life

How simple can you get? I spent much of yesterday afternoon watching alot of old men remembering their mates of 60 years ago....the ones who did'nt grow old. And why did they not grow old? Because politicians - and the majority of public opinion - said they were not interested in confronting Nazi Germany which had done us no harm, although it had invaded a "country far away of which we know little" (Neville Chamberlain). They ultimately paid the price of ignoring Hitler and hoping he'd go away.

If history teaches us any lesson, it is that history teaches us nowt. If anyone seriously thinks here that the problems of the Middle East (Dictatorship & Islamic fanatisism) can be addressed by ignoring them and appeasing it's players, then you're in cloud cuckoo land. We have no choice but to take 'em on. OK, the Spaniards(No nuclear arms program) have thrown in the towel, but so have the Libyans (Extensive Nuclear and other WMD programs)

This is an interesting thread. Lets here more.

KIPAX · 07-06-2004, 13:28

Why bother? You have spoken now.. Put everyone in there place and told them whats what.. While the rest of us where having a debate you wade in telling us how it is.. Not how you think it is or your opinion on anyhting.. just wade in shouting the odds.

Tealeaf · 07-06-2004, 14:09

The only odds I'm shouting, Kippax, is on England not making it beyond the group stage..(sorry if I've jumped threads there).

Acrylic-bob · 07-06-2004, 16:32

>>if this is all about oil, what are we actually getting out of it. We are not pinching Iraq's oil are we? The war is costing us a bloody fortune so where is the profit for us?<<
Think about it. Which is easier, persuading someone like Saddam Hussein to do your bidding, or persuading a 'Democratic' body who are beholden to you because it is you who nominated them and it is your money that helps finance them? And also remember that the US is likley to insist that there will be some residual military presence in Iraq, in much the same way that they kept a base in the Phillipines, just to keep an eye on things and to use as a staging post for the next adventure.
The creation and maintenance of client states worked for the Roman Empire, and any other empire you care to mention, including our own.