Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Pulling out of Iraq
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Greetings
If the U.S. forces pulled out of Iraq And left us (The Brits) to carry on What would be the Outcome Is this a nieve question?
If the British forces pulled out Iraq and left (The U.S.) to carry on What would be the outcome Is this a nieve Question? -
Message 2
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
The US is stuck.
-
Message 3
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
If the US pulled out and left Britain there, we'd go to. If we didn't go, we'd have to leave the Kurds to form Kurdistan, the Sunnis to form their own Government and we'll stay in the South to stop the Iranians from taking over there.
-
Message 4
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
Hi Stan, It's a good "What If " question. I would say His Lordship has it correct. To pull out of Iraq would be madness. This is where we can kill a lot of Al Qaeda . If you want to meet Allah and die a martyr Iraq is the place to come. They are coming in droves. Of course we are taking casualties, but in the big picture of things, its a small price to pay. We are after all at war. That's what soldiers do. Fight, kill, and die. Can you imagine a free Iraq. Every other country in the neighborhood would see the benefits of a free society. We know it's also about the oil. Bear in mind a few months ago Britain became an oil importer, even with the new oil field you are and will continue to come up short. Your pits are closed and you have signed the Kyoto ? treaty. India and China get a free ride and their economies are flying. What is the first thing a family wants with more income. A car and comfortable house. The Middle East is of the utmost importance to Europe, and the U.S. Like it or not we are there for a while.
-
Message 5
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Saturday, 1st October 2005
<QUOTE' USER='expat32' USERID='2025313'>Hi Stan, It's a good "What If " question. I would say His Lordship has it correct. To pull out of Iraq would be madness. This is where we can kill a lot of Al Qaeda . If you want to meet Allah and die a martyr Iraq is the place to come. They are coming in droves. Of course we are taking casualties, but in the big picture of things, its a small price to pay. We are after all at war. That's what soldiers do. Fight, kill, and die. Can you imagine a free Iraq. Every other country in the neighborhood would see the benefits of a free society. We know it's also about the oil. Bear in mind a few months ago Britain became an oil importer, even with the new oil field you are and will continue to come up short. Your pits are closed and you have signed the Kyoto ? treaty. India and China get a free ride and their economies are flying. What is the first thing a family wants with more income. A car and comfortable house. The Middle East is of the utmost importance to Europe, and the U.S. Like it or not we are there for a while.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />When the US first entered Iraq al Q. was not there. Who was the US fighting? <BR /><BR />The idea that by western armies being in Iraq, the Al Q. fighters will someday dry up like a drained lake, is groundless. There is a civil war taking place, and most Muslims already dislike the US for its support of Israel. <BR /><BR />The invasion was a huge blunder. That is, however, water under the bridge. The US will be there for ten more years.<BR /><BR />jb
-
Message 6
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 2nd October 2005
"When the US first entered Iraq al Q. was not there. Who was the US fighting?
The idea that by western armies being in Iraq, the Al Q. fighters will someday dry up like a drained lake, is groundless. There is a civil war taking place, and most Muslims already dislike the US for its support of Israel.
The invasion was a huge blunder. That is, however, water under the bridge. The US will be there for ten more years.
jb "
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
" When the US first entered Iraq al Q. was not there. Who was the US fighting? "
They are there now.
" The idea that by western armies being in Iraq, the Al Q. fighters will someday dry up like a drained lake, is groundless. "
I said that ?
" There is a civil war taking place, and most Muslims already dislike the US for its support of Israel. "
Well...I'm absolutely astounded, are you trying imply some people don't like the U.S. ...ridicules... Someone please pass me a handkerchief.
" The invasion was a huge blunder."
Because ?
" That is, however, water under the bridge. The US will be there for ten more years. "
jb
The U.S. will be there for at least 50 more years. -
Message 7
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
IMO the solution to Iraq doesn't lie in US or UK occupation. Bin Laden and his happy band of nutters have the perfect recruiting tool, in the presence of the "Evil West" in the middle of the Islamic World. The solution to this (In my opinion) is to replace the US/UK led coalition with a UN force, made up of primarily Islamic nations, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and dare I say it Libya. With a UN mandate to police the country until it can stand on its own two feet, having a UN force made up on Islamic soldiers, this removes at a single stroke the "Jihadi" element from the conflict, and destroys the now familiar argument of "defending Muslim Brothers and Sisters from the evil West" which is doing such a marvellous job of recruiting idiots to blow themselves up.
Granted this would mean al-Qaeda and co would have to shift their operations back to terrorist strikes, but it is simply not fair to use Iraq as a battleground! Sadly, I think this will happen when hell freezes over, but there isn't any other feasible solution. It won't happen because it's all about oil.
The Iraq problem could have been solved quite easily in 1991, when the Iraqi army was utterly beaten, there was confirmed justification for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam, and there was a truly multinational army, containing many middle eastern nations as well as western ones. In 91, the Islamic viewpoint of Saddam was that he was an apostate and a murderer, and as such, there was no Islamic support for him. The decision to stop and not finish the job was one of the greatest errors in recent times. My own recollection at the time was that it was like World War 2 being halted at the German border.
By the time of the second war in 2003, we were post 9/11, and Islamic opinion had shifted dramatically, to the extent where many Islamic fundamentalists see Saddam as a Muslim hero (despite the fact that he quite happily slaughtered Islamists when he was in power). This is astonishing considering the level of global sympathy for the US after 9/11, and very sad, since the US has managed to waste that sympathy, and portray itself as the bad guy again.
The only solution is to let the Islamic world deal with Islamic terrorism.
Cheers
DL -
Message 8
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
hi DL,
the first gulf war to me is the same as us stopping on the border of germany in the first world war, meaning that we would have to come back and finish the job in a second world war
the US public wouldn't have tollerated a push to baghdad then, as i remember it was 'the road to basra' which stopped such a thing to happening
wasting iraqis for the sake of wasting iraqis just wasn't a good enough reason
terrorism in iraq is already targeting muslims anyway and if we were to replace ourselves with muslim soldiers i serisouly doubt it would make any difference atall
i don't even think a UN force is an idea in itself, this is an organisation that told us not to go, we can hardly ask them to use their troops for something they disagree with, they would just be targets the saem as the US or britain -
Message 9
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Wouldn't an Islamic Peace Keeping force simply increase the tensions between the various Muslim factions in Iraq? Sunnis trying to Police Shiites and vice versa?
-
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Hey I'm not saying that it is a perfect solution, but in my opinion it is the only way to defuse the religious element to the conflict. The presence of western forces in Iraq allows Islamic fanatics to sell the idea that the west is "out to get" Muslims to people, and opens the door to convinced these people to blow themselves (and whoever else is around) up in the name of Allah.
Personally, I think the UN wouldn't touch it with a bargepole as things stand, but the current situation is not working. An immediate withdrawal by western troops would not work either, the argument of Zarqawi and co would simply shift to saying "The west caused all this and then abandoned you", thereby supplying the next wave of suicide bombers with their cause.
So what are the options? Stay there forever, and it turns into a Vietnam situation-an unwinnable guerrilla war, with increasing unpopularity at home? Not a good prospect. Or leave? Again, the terrorism problem isn't going to go away. I still maintain the only option with any chance of success is to phase in an peacekeeping force of mainly Islamic troops, as sectarian trouble is much more manageable than the current state of play. If terrorism continued between Shia and Sunni, then they would lose the majority of popular support, since they can no longer claim to be fighting a "Jihad", and the flow of foreign terrorists in Iraq would dry up (and if we are being told the truth by our governments, the foreign fighters are the majority of the terrorists).
Cheers -
Message 11
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
hi DL,
IMO, i think the only solution to the trouble is to get a saddam type person to run the country
i remember reading 'Das Reich' by Mx Hastings and the way the germans dealt with the french resistance, that soon stopped them trying anything
saddam would have the country in check with in the month, it is cetainly just as realistic as the UN, but that is the only way i could see a stable nation unfold
my answer is truely unjust and nasty but it would be the answer
a particular potent part in das reich i remember is when the division is driving through towns with the bodies of dead resistance on their bonnets
a couple of SS units with einsatz gruppe would soon have iraqis under control
unfortunatly it is the only way that i can see -
Message 12
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
see how much backing zarqawi gets then
-
Message 13
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Pretty chilling reply Trident!
That however is too high a price to pay for peace. We are, after all supposed to be a civilized nation after all, and during my army life, I would have refused any order to shoot civilians. We're better than that.
Plus the entire Islamic world would rise up. There'd be no oil for us anyway, and terrorism would become a daily occurance in all other countries. The whole thing would spiral out of control into a major conflict.
If I remember rightly from Das Reich, the Jedburgh led teams of Partisans continued their attacks regardless, and I may be wrong on this, but if my memory serves me correctly, they arrived in Normandy just in time to be pounded to death by allied air power, and had no or little effect on the battle.
Cheers -
Message 14
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
hi DL,
absolutly the only just outcome did prevail, they were rightly pounded by our air power as these were very nasty people (althoug brainwashed)
and the resistance certainly helped in bringing an end to the division
and any soldier who carried out such actions would be hopefully tried for human rights abuse
i am not saying i agree with these actions or that they are somehow justified
but they would work IMO -
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Yeah Das Reich were a nasty bunch and that is an understatement. Yet as soldiers on the battlefield, they were amongst the best in WW2, with bravery fed by fanatical nazism and willingness to sacrifice themselves for the cause they had been drip-fed since birth.
Whether it would work to use such forces against the current wave of Islamic terrorism I would doubt. OBL and his happy band are equally as fanatical, and more willing to die, since they believe in this 46 virgins and rivers of wine lark. Just to go off on a tangent, can anyone else see the hypocrisy in that? A religion which promotes monogamy and despises alcohol promises debauchery, free sex and loads of booze when you're dead? I don't know, they'll be promising bacon butties next!!!
Anyway, going back on topic, I think (well, I hope) the age of Total War as seen on the Eastern Front in WW2 is over, and in the age of instant global communications, the world is always watching.
Cheers -
Message 16
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
hi DL,
bacon butties, hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
i couldn't be jewish or islaamic for the sole fact that you aren't allowed that beutiful delicacy
bangers and mash, hhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm -
Message 17
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
greetings Trident<BR />how wrong you are. Go down to White Hart lane on any home match and see the nice Jewish boys having a BLT or a bacon and chip buttie (my favorite) with the obligatory brown sauce!<SMILEY TYPE='magic' H2G2='Smiley#magic'/><BR /> Seriously throw some saltbeef Sandwichs at Iraq and pickled cucumber rockets and there will be peace in the area within the week<SMILEY TYPE='winkeye' H2G2='Smiley#winkeye'/> <BR /><QUOTE' USER='Trident_MKII' USERID='1823460'>hi DL,<BR /><BR />bacon butties, hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm<BR /><BR />i couldn't be jewish or islaamic for the sole fact that you aren't allowed that beutiful delicacy<BR /><BR />bangers and mash, hhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm </QUOTE>
-
Message 18
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Monday, 3rd October 2005
Hi DL, What do you think ? Did the female sucide bomber get 72 stiff ....awe well....never mind
-
Message 19
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005
Expat,
Slightly sick, but very funny....
Beware my friend, the Goons (also known as Moderators) will be after you for un-PC behaviour!
Having said that its only as sick as the idea in the first place!
Cheers
DL -
Message 20
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DL ' USERID='1683040'>Expat,<BR /><BR />Slightly sick, but very funny....<BR />Beware my friend, the Goons (also known as Moderators) will be after you for un-PC behaviour!<BR /><BR />Having said that its only as sick as the idea in the first place!<BR /><BR />Cheers<BR />DL</QUOTE><BR /><BR />Hi DL, Unfortunately I have already felt the wrath of the cyber sensor.I really don't get it. You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater unless its fact, but I think if it's overdone it stifles the flow of original thought. <BR />
-
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 4th October 2005
Yeah the Goons aren't too bad on here, they only react when a complaint has been made, otherwise they just leave us in peace. I've only had trouble on here with threads involving the Palestinian/Israeli debate-there was one poster on here who was seriously anti-semitic at times, and I got a tad annoyed and called him a Nazi (actually I compared him to Julius Streicher) and that didn't go down well.
Having said that, the Goons still left the post on after review.
So if the Goons are the Mods, then who is Colonel Klink?
Cheers
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.