Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
How long in Iraq ?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
Does anyone have a clue about how long the US forces and by extension the UK forces are expected to remain in Iraq ?
Is it time to set a fixed date for withdrawl of all coalition forces as we seem to have become a target not only for the expected insurgents but a source of deep resentment for many ordinary Iraqi's who were pleased to see the back of Saddam.
Are we simply seen as an occupying imperalist force of western crusaders now? -
Message 2
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
There will be a limited withdrawal this year as UK is committed to putting more troops into Afghanisatan. However, a part of the Iraqi constitution forbidding the presence of foreign bass without 2/3 parliamentary approval was dropped after some calls with the US, which should be a clue.
-
Message 3
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
The implication of your reply is that the US neo-con plans involve a long term occupation of Iraq as a presence in the middle east ? There will be a limited withdrawal this year as UK is committed to putting more troops into Afghanisatan. However, a part of the Iraqi constitution forbidding the presence of foreign bass without 2/3 parliamentary approval was dropped after some calls with the US, which should be a clue. Β
-
Message 4
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
Correct, the original war plan envisaged four major bases into which troops would be moved from Saudi Arabia (to take some of the heat out of infidels being in the Islamic Holiest land).
-
Message 5
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
I suspect we'll be there until we get beaten out and have to do hideous paniced airlifts from Bagdad leaving behind any Iraqi who ever helped us.
But then I remember the fall of Saigon.
Too, too depressing.
Eliza -
Message 6
Posted by Erichsen (U2991919) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
We are the guests who brought great gifts (ousting of S.H.), but then stayed far too long.
Unfortunately, we can not pull out until we get the Iraqi guards in real shape to defend their country (against Iran). I think the insurgency will change drastically once we are gone, although Iraqi govt. officials will continue to be targetted I am sure.
We will leave (we certainly want to), but it will take another year or so.
I just can not contemplate that 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in this mess. -
Message 7
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
I just can not contemplate that 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in this mess.
Yes, this is the truly terrrible aspect of this whole ghastly mess. I keep thinking of Walpole, at the start of the seven years war (or possibly Jenkins ear?) saying 'They are ringing the bells now - soon they will be wringing their hands.'
What strikes me though is this - surely if the funadmental Islamacists want to take over Iraq, their most effective strategy to accomplish this wouldbe to lay low, let Iraq go, apparenlty 'peaceful' thereby giving the West the 'rationale' it desperately needs to get out with some kind of 'advantage' (in PR terms), and then, the moment we've gone, zap hell out of the rest of Iraq until they can take over (probably about 48 hours after they leave.) Then they can turn right back into a dictatorship, except now it will be a theocratic one.
Me, I don't give a toss what happens there now (providing they don't nuke us....). I just want us out, out, out.
Talk about nemesis for western arrogance (not to mention the arrogance of thinking we were welcome or that anyone would say thank you.)
Let them get on without us. And vice versa. Agree to differ, if that's the way we can live side by side without killing each other any more.
Still too too depressing.
Eliza. -
Message 8
Posted by Trident_MKII (U1823460) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
perhaps we should keep it ?
is iraq going to become a version of what was made in germany and japan after the second world war ?
or is it going to become a south vietnam where we eventually get pushed out of the country by the enemy ?
i think we should turn it into a colony, it cost us a fortune to take the country and is now costing even more to stay there
we should use all the oil revenue from the country to spend on our countries, that way it would have been a worthwile adventure -
Message 9
Posted by Aiden (U1707544) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
If this is true I can't help but think that great American presidents of the past such as Roosevelt and Eisenhower(both ant-imperialists) would be spinning in their graves to think that Bush is turning the US into the world imperialists of the 21st century. Correct, the original war plan envisaged four major bases into which troops would be moved from Saudi Arabia (to take some of the heat out of infidels being in the Islamic Holiest land). Β
-
Message 10
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
Eliza7Beth leaving now would be BAD BAD BAD.
At the risk of starting a long arguement about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq, whats happened there in the last couple of years has almost certainly saved many lives in the long run.
Everytime someone goes out there to actually see how real Iraqis are living right now they are largely happy and properous, they want the Americans to leave eventually but not now or even that soon. The news shows little but the grief caused by terroists and insergants, but nothing of the good. -
Message 11
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
perhaps we should keep it ?
is iraq going to become a version of what was made in germany and japan after the second world war ?
or is it going to become a south vietnam where we eventually get pushed out of the country by the enemy ?
i think we should turn it into a colony, it cost us a fortune to take the country and is now costing even more to stay there
we should use all the oil revenue from the country to spend on our countries, that way it would have been a worthwile adventureΒ
We've done it before, but the Yanks haven't had that much experience when it comes to Colonies. Only the Phillipines was what you could call a US colony worth talking about. If they do turn it into a colony, they should hand it over to us. At least we can build it up again before giving it back to the Iraqis. -
Message 12
Posted by Erichsen (U2991919) on Thursday, 19th January 2006
...Be careful what you ask for.
Eliz brings a question I often ponder - what are the insurgents thinking? Why not play the sleeping dragon and wait for the Jolly Green Giant to go home?
Well, I strongly feel they are not a logical bunch - their extremist views express that enough, so I think they are acting more on 'feeling', such as a Holy warrior might be expected to. Shame we can not turn this to our advantage, as of yet.
-Chris -
Message 13
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Luckily murderous fanatisism and logic don't walk hand in hand. The hand over will only happen when Iraq's army is as numerious and well trained as the allied armies so the insergents and terrorists will essentially be facing the same opposition.
-
Message 14
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 20th January 2006
I also think they want to 'send us packing' very visibly. Sadly, I think there's a very good chance they'll achieve it. If the bloodbath continues and the body bags heading for the USA (and ourselves etc) increase in number, for all the USA's attemtps to conceal or play down the numbers, those who can remember Vietnam - and they're only middle aged and the parents of those soldiers being killed now, day after day - will call time. I cannot but think the next President will end the war, pull out, blame Bush etc, and head for Antarctica with every drilling rig they can.
America couldn't win in Vietnam because it could not win hearts and minds. You can't win a war without hearts and minds. And some hearts and minds are not worth winning.... (NOR, of course, it is a clear cut twolegs/fourlegs affair! There's a LOT horrible about western culture that I can very well understand non-westerners hating and resenting and fighting against. Quite frankly, if Islam were not so hideously anti-female - and, if goes without saying, prepared to kill for their faith - I'd think they had a lot better anti-western case. But they are just commiting own goal after own goal.)
Eliza. -
Message 15
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
Eliz I don't see why you seem to hate the "western" world so much or see Iraq as a massive grave yard caused by the US. Can you seriously tell me looking out my window I'm looking down on evil people? The TV, books and internet corrupting my mind with evil western ideals? That our culture, our developements have not done more good for the people of the world than bad? I live in a massively cosmopolitan town in the UK and have met people of so many different denominations, a concept of a "western" world or culture is so outdate anyway.
Also there are far more secular Islamic countries scattered accross the globe which are not dominated by sexual discrimination, Indonesia the largest Islamic country in the world has a women president.
I respect you have an opinion that is different to mine and probably the truth is between the two, but I think your views are farly extreme and I can't see the basis for them. -
Message 16
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
iPad - no no no! I've obviously given out the wrong message in my postings! I don't think Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East is worth western lives. I don't think Vietnam was worth western lives. I think every American and Australian young man killed there had his life taken from him for NOTHING. Nothing at all. This is what is so horrendous to me.
I sincerely believe that the Middle East must find its own way. It doesn't want our way, it's making that very clear. How much responsiblity we have for the situaton is very tortured. We, in the west, are hypocritical in that we 'care' about creating democracy in these places mostly because they are sitting on oil that we want. We 'care' about them primarily for that reason. There are dictators everywhere in the world, but it's Saddam Hussein we got rid of. But for all the west's interference in the Middle East, I never ever realised they hated us so much until 9/11.
To this day I am still stunned by 9/11. It truly came out of the blue for me. But it made it crystal clear that here was an area, a culture, that we could do nothign about. One day it will be democratic, I sincerely hope, but democracy is a slow growing tree, it cannot be flourished overnight. I also sincerely believe that the oppression of women is NOT fundamental to Islam as a religion - as I've said elsewhere, Christianity managed to shed its oppression of women, and Islam can too - as you say there are places where Islam is tolerant of women as equal citizens.
It's just that I think Iraq is a no-win war. I grew up through Nam and saw the news and the body bags. It just went on and on and on. For nothing. Because it was a hearts and minds war. If the USA has a fatal flaw it is in thinking that 'everyone' wants to be like it, except a twisted few. This isn't to say that the USA 'way' is worse, because personally I'd rather live under US hegemony than say either Communist or Theocratic. But it is to say that there are a LOT of people who DO prefer those two forms of government, and trying to win them over doesn't work. It especially doesn't work if you drop napalm on them. However, of the deaths in Iraq, it seems the ones doing the killing are the Iraquis, not the western troops.
As for what's wrong with western culture - there are two main things. One is the 'crass culture' of cocacola and manic materialism. Do we really want a world where Victora Beckham pays Β£10,000 for a handbag? Do we really want a world where a member of parliament, a representative of the people who elected him, pretends to lap milk from a woman on his knees (Reality TV in this country)? Do we really want a world where the likes of Monsanto force the worlds farmers to buy seed it used to be able to save from its previous harvest, because that way the lieks of Monsanto get richer and richer?
The other main, main problem I have with western culture right now is its sexual degeneracy. I'd like my children to grow up without having sex exposed to them day after day on the media, to have adverts for jeans which use sado-masochistic sexual imagery, to not have to have lap dancing clubs opening up in residential areas. Etc etc etc. (That's why I have sympathy for Muslim women in this country wanting to wear headscraves, to protect themselves from that over-sexualised world. Trouble is, Islam is hardly a true respecter of women's modesty either...)
But when it comes to Iraq - I just want out. Not one more dead young man. I think it's time to wash our hands of the Middle East.
Eliza -
Message 17
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Saturday, 21st January 2006
iPad - no no no! I've obviously given out the wrong message in my postings! I don't think Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East is worth western lives. I don't think Vietnam was worth western lives (and I certainlyu don't think it was worth Vietnamese lives either). I think every American and Australian young man killed there had his life taken from him for NOTHING. Nothing at all. This is what is so horrendous to me.
I sincerely believe that the Middle East must find its own way. It doesn't want our way, it's making that very clear. How much responsiblity we have for the situaton is very tortured. We, in the west, are hypocritical in that we 'care' about creating democracy in these places mostly because they are sitting on oil that we want. We 'care' about them primarily for that reason. There are dictators everywhere in the world, but it's Saddam Hussein we got rid of. But for all the west's interference in the Middle East, I never ever realised they hated us so much until 9/11.
To this day I am still stunned by 9/11. It truly came out of the blue for me. But it made it crystal clear that here was an area, a culture, that we could do nothign about. One day it will be democratic, I sincerely hope, but democracy is a slow growing tree, it cannot be flourished overnight. I also sincerely believe that the oppression of women is NOT fundamental to Islam as a religion - as I've said elsewhere, Christianity managed to shed its oppression of women, and Islam can too - as you say there are places where Islam is tolerant of women as equal citizens.
It's just that I think Iraq is a no-win war. I grew up through Nam and saw the news and the body bags. It just went on and on and on. For nothing. Because it was a hearts and minds war. If the USA has a fatal flaw it is in thinking that 'everyone' wants to be like it, except a twisted few. This isn't to say that the USA 'way' is worse, because personally I'd rather live under US hegemony than say either Communist or Theocratic. But it is to say that there are a LOT of people who DO prefer those two forms of government, and trying to win them over doesn't work. It especially doesn't work if you drop napalm on them. However, of the deaths in Iraq, it seems the ones doing the killing are the Iraquis, not the western troops.
As for what's wrong with western culture - there are two main things. One is the 'crass culture' of cocacola and manic materialism. Do we really want a world where Victora Beckham pays Β£10,000 for a handbag? Do we really want a world where a member of parliament, a representative of the people who elected him, pretends to lap milk from a woman on his knees (Reality TV in this country)? Do we really want a world where the likes of Monsanto force the worlds farmers to buy seed it used to be able to save from its previous harvest, because that way the lieks of Monsanto get richer and richer?
The other main, main problem I have with western culture right now is its sexual degeneracy. I'd like my children to grow up without having sex exposed to them day after day on the media, to have adverts for jeans which use sado-masochistic sexual imagery, to not have to have lap dancing clubs opening up in residential areas. Etc etc etc. (That's why I have sympathy for Muslim women in this country wanting to wear headscraves, to protect themselves from that over-sexualised world. Trouble is, Islam is hardly a true respecter of women's modesty either...)
But when it comes to Iraq - I just want out. Not one more dead young man. I think it's time to wash our hands of the Middle East.
Eliza -
Message 18
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
I think we just fundamentaly just have different opinions on what to do about the problems in the world. I'm no war monger, I fully realise what the horrors of war and violence should be avoided where possible, but with grim inevitability war will happen again and again. Military action should only be used for the greater good. Ignoring WMDs, oil etc. what happened in Iraq in my opinion needed to happen. Why Iraq? Why not the other dictators? I've been asked when ever I say this, I believe they should all be delt with one way or another.
To compare Veitnam to Iraq is highly misleading, the death toll on both sides and to the civilans is a tiny fraction. 52,000 US troops died in 'nam compared to 1000 in Iraq. One million civilans died in Veitnam, top estamate alleges 30,000 in Iraq, probably mainly caused by the Rebublican Guard, insergents and terrorists, not the US, Britain, Poland etc.
The refugees from, and disadents in Iraq wanted democracy, as people were protesting against the war, many of them were protesting for it. Democracy doesn't go hand in hand with the big mac and nike trainers, I think you are confusing what for me is a simple issue with the arguements against globalisation. Self determination, self freedom and freedom from poverty and oppression are the rights every person. Under Saddam these were forfite for most Iraqis.
There have been many new and successful democracies recently, many countries right now are in the process of going from dictatorships to democracies, without blood shed, or often sanctions.
I know where I blame the problems of the Middle East and it has nothing to do with a few extremists who have rejected western society as decadent or unholy. -
Message 19
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Eliza wrote:
>We, in the west, are hypocritical in that we 'care' about creating democracy in these places mostly because they are sitting on oil that we want. We 'care' about them primarily for that reason. There are dictators everywhere in the world, but it's Saddam Hussein we got rid of.<
Look how the price of oil have gone up, with at least 10 $ the barrel deriving from the conflict. And yet you think this was the prime motivation?
You seem unable to think of the real reason, which is the wish of Israel and its stooges in Washington to remove an old foe and THE BEST FRIEND AND BENEFACTOR of the palestinians. Remember how the, admittedly rather efficient, war-drummers was beating up propaganda about Saddam providing 10.000 $ to the widow of a suicidebomber. I personally don't see anything wrong with this, as anybody can use money the way they like, and God knows she would need them after her husband has gone. This was what I immediately thought for myself at the time, ignoring the propaganda - seing through where it came from and the purpose of it.
It is a bit worrysome that people claiming interests in history are unable to see through this and apprehend the real motivations for 9/11, which was a political protest against 35 years of disproportional US ME policy. And that they in this way neglect who decided and pushed for war in the ME.(The neo-cons made the blue print of pre-emptive strikes).
Perhaps it is too close in time for you to form quilified opinions yet? You need to read about it in a history book some years ahead? Hopeful you will find it in said books. In the meantime I will be spelling it out here, as indeed anywhere. -
Message 20
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ NEWS Thursday, 29 August, 2002
Bush 'no Churchill' says grandson
By Ollie Stone-Lee
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News Online politics staff
Mr Soames said it was clear there would be US action, although not before the New Year, and he warned Iraq would be "no pushover".
As one quarter American himself, the MP stressed he would love to support the US over Iraq but argued it needed to "take people with her".
Saddam Hussein was an "absolutely grotesque figure", he said, but that was not necessarily a reason for "regime change" - there were no plans to topple Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, for example.
Middle East tensions
Mr Soames continued: "I also think one of the comparisons that does not stand up was that Churchill was a great thinker in the round of the whole scene.
"It would be lunacy to pretend you can just go into Iraq without having regard to what is going to happen in the Middle East."
He urged America to secure a new United Nations resolution on dealing with Iraq.
He added: "There is no doubt there is a problem. What's the scale of the problem? There are military arguments for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
"My own view is that it's better to be jaw, jaw than war, war. It's much easier to go to war than it is to go to peace."
**'
Commentary:
Look no mention of oil here. The oil was flowing free - getting to the market, despite some later reveiled financial 'problems'. That you lot continue to mention oil as motivating factor, must be due to an inherent unwillingness to name who is really behind: 'The cration of the anomaly: Israel in the ME, and its (supposed) interests. I say 'supposed, because see where this un-elected lot have gotten us: A mess, that threatens to become an Iran ally, alien to the west and Israel. How stupid are one allowed to be, sand still get away with it? When will the world say stop to the illegal entity dragging the world into trouble time after another? -
Message 21
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
To compare Veitnam to Iraq is highly misleading, the death toll on both sides and to the civilans is a tiny fraction. 52,000 US troops died in 'nam compared to 1000 in Iraq. One million civilans died in Veitnam, top estamate alleges 30,000 in Iraq, probably mainly caused by the Rebublican Guard, insergents and terrorists, not the US, Britain, Poland etc.
Yes, but unlike Vietnam, the Iraq war is not over yet, and the body count is still being counted, and increasing, and increasing. It's to STOP Iraq turning into Vietnam that is the most pressing priority right now.
As for the price of oil - the increase is because the reality of just how difficult (impossible?) it will be to 'stablise' Iraq is only just coming home to roost - and the oil-futures profiteers are pigging out like vultures.
If there were no oil in the ME, the west would not be interested in it, Israel of not.
As for waiting for history to take its course before judging or evaluating, well, the terryfying thing is that politicians have to take life-or-death-for-others decisions NOW, before history has had time to show us 'the truth' (if ever!) with the hindsight of years. Decisions have to be made now, tomorrow, soon, next year ....and meanwhile people keep dying.
I just think we should pull the troops out and head for home.
Eliza. -
Message 22
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
When I said this:
I know where I blame the problems of the Middle East and it has nothing to do with a few extremists who have rejected western society as decadent or unholy.Β
Pritty much hinted at this:
Look no mention of oil here. The oil was flowing free - getting to the market, despite some later reveiled financial 'problems'. That you lot continue to mention oil as motivating factor, must be due to an inherent unwillingness to name who is really behind: 'The cration of the anomaly: Israel in the ME, and its (supposed) interests. I say 'supposed, because see where this un-elected lot have gotten us: A mess, that threatens to become an Iran ally, alien to the west and Israel. How stupid are one allowed to be, sand still get away with it? When will the world say stop to the illegal entity dragging the world into trouble time after another?Β
America has to behave as it does as its political suicide for any party to pull their moneytary and political support for Israel.
I personally blame the need for a second gulf war on the restraints placed on the coalition from the first. It should of been ended in 1989. The slaughter of Iraqis in the uprising after the war and fifteen further years oppressing his people and playing cat and mouse with a toothless UN would never of happened. -
Message 23
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Eliza it easy to get the impression from the News Papers that Iraq is just a massive blood bath, but the numbers I quoted you speak for themselves. It is no Veitnam, the country isn't split in two, it is progressing towards a stable democracy and the insergants or even those who do not support the current government are in the vaste minority.
-
Message 24
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
iPad, I DO hope you're right, of course I do. But how long do we give them? How long do the parents of servicemen give them, while their sons are dying?
However, the issue of 'finishing the job' is also affected by whether the west now has a responsiblity towards Iraq, having invaded it in the first place. That's a tough one. But I think it's a 'no win, no gratitude' situationa. That's why I just want out.
I agree that had Saddam been deposed at the end of the first gulf war, things would have been a lot better (I hope!!!). But I believe the Arab world only condoned US action there IF they refrained from moving into Iraq?
Eliza. -
Message 25
Posted by iPad (U2181937) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Well hopefull the gradual pull out will start in a few months and by the end of the year we will know when all our service personel will be coming home.
-
Message 26
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
I may be wrong, but I think that the last of the American troops left the Balkans last year--a ten year stay in an area not as "hot" as Iraq.
I was not in favor of invading Iraq--for all the now apparent reasons. The Bush adminstration either lied about its reasons for going to war, or made a huge blunder. I, an amatuer historian, knew how the war would go.
We (coalition forces as Bush calls them) can not leave now, nor set a date. Al Queada would set up shop as it did in Afganistan.
Fifteen years was spent in Vietnam--just a few dead soldiers every day...
In WW2, the average civilian on the home front sacrificed comfort, daily. Today, the only ones who sacrifice are the families of service personel and the soldiers themselves. In the US, taxes were lowered for the richest citizens.
This IS too depressing.
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.