Should Britain Withdraw From Iraq?

[Peace-Phoenix]

The question's, well, in the question....

[phoenix_indigo]

i voted for a phased withdrawl though don't think it should take 12 months. i also don't think they could just pull out say tomorrow leaving the discord they've caused behind.

and as a note when i say "they" i mean both the US and British armies. then again, maybe the british troops could just up and leave the Americans in there, and have them do the phased withdrawl but we definitely should not be having this same discussion in another year that is for sure.

in my opinion they should have been out of there ages ago.

[Jesly]

Yes , immediately....



Jesly
http://allendonald.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/hello-world/

[paulfreespirit]

considering that we should never had got into this unjust illegal war in the first place my vote has been cast

[dapablo]

I've gone for phased withdrawel because I don't thinbk we should just leave the common people to the whims of the thugs.

[skimpot]

ok I was joking but such a difficult question:eek:


So I voted for the option most related to never.

[lithium]

Immediate withdrawal to be replaced with a multinational pan-Arab UN force protecting government and civil infrastructure. Oh yes, what government and civil infrastructure?:rolleyes:

[fountains of nay]

I think a phased withdrawal would be more suitable than an outright pack up and leave strategy.

[experimenting youth]

I think we should stay as long as it takes, ok I think we should never have went there, but now we've caused a lot of trouble and hopefully it will not have been in vain at the end of it. But who says the trouble will be over in 12 months, we have to sort it out properly.

[IlUvMuSIc]

I think we should have a phased withdrawel. We made the mess. We should clean it up.

[J0hn]

Each day we are sending in more british soldiers as young as 18. This war unlike Vietnam, will not end. we will lose unless we withdraw troops now. I think an immdeite withdrawel should be done. Let america fight a losing cause. More fool them. Bring our british soldiers home.

[MoxDragon]

United Nations troops should be the only foreign military forces to intercede in the affairs of any other nation state..with the backing of the UN obviously.

The problem is that a withdrawal of forces will lead to lawlessness and mayhem, full scale civil war would break out in Iraq if the US forces followed the UK example and left, destabalising the whole region, partly by giving Iran a pretext for invading Iraq.

Yet allied troops are considered as much as an enemy as the Iranian armed forces would be and their presence only incites violence and resentment, Iraq will not be 'healed' until it regains national identity and national pride.

Thus the only way to protect civilians and resources yet allow Iraq to regain its pride and identity is by withdrawing allied troops and replacing them with UN peace keeping forces.

The UN ethos must be respected by the US and other nations, the US in particular should recognise that it must mend its ways with its arrogant and dismissive treatment of the UN, unilateral action and anti green policymaking are but a one fingered salute to every other nation on earth..the US should lead by example..but it acts like a fuedal war lord, taking and killing because it can.

The rule of law must be respected, it is for our collective benefit, national or international.

Failiure to comply will result in a breakdown of order.

[MoxDragon]

ahem...no offence america!

[Azog 150]

A phased withdrawal but over a shorter period- say 6 months?

[scratcho]

edited=not a Brit.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/newicons/icon15.gif

[little ski]

.

[tomandhismuse]

I voted for a phased withdrawal, purely so we can wipe our feet and clean up all the crap on our way back out.

[Bonsai Ent]

Given that (according to all Iraqi sources) Iraq is lawless, unsafe and engaged in a de facto civil war, I can't really see that withdrawal is going to worsen the situation.

Our military presence is not increasing security, and is incapable of bringing stability to the region.

Attempts to engineer their society have been clumsy and reckless, we need to let them solve their own problems.

The only function the forces currently serve is that of maintaining the green zones, so our precious media can have safe hotels when they visit.

That and intimidating the "democratic" government of Iraq into not putting any crazy ideas like "control of their own oil supplies" into the nations constitution.

Not to mention the massive drain on national resources during a time of economic slowdown.

[j700]

I think we should carry on and conquer the middle east and north Africa and bring some civilisation to those people.
Especially in the countries where the death cult known as Islam has taken hold

[Bonsai Ent]

I think we should carry on and conquer the middle east and north Africa and bring some civilisation to those people.
Especially in the countries where the death cult known as Islam has taken hold

lol bring civilisation by behaving like barbarians?

Hey maybe for a follow-up we can cook some beef by freezing it and put out a fire with a flame-thrower :p

[j700]

lol bring civilisation by behaving like barbarians?

Hey maybe for a follow-up we can cook some beef by freezing it and put out a fire with a flame-thrower :p
No, I dont propose putting on a barbeque, just taking over their "governments" such as they are, and replacing them with democracies.
The hate against the west has to stop, after all we dont hate them. We dont behead muslims simply for holding another view or because their religion is deemed crap. Yet they take good people such as ken Bigley and behead them when those people havent done a damned thing to harm anyone.

SO I say lets put an end to this nonesense of the muslim hate machine attacking the west by slipping in and pulling the rug from under them

[detector]

no got to finish what was started by someone else as usual, the country needs stability more than anything and like it or not we can help with that.

[McLeodGanja]

I think they should pull out now. I don't see how a phased withdrawal is going to prevent there being any problems from sectarian violence. Let's suppose they are half way pulling out, and there a huge uprising in one of the areas where we'd left. What do we do then?

[odon]

SO I say lets put an end to this nonesense of the muslim hate machine attacking the west by slipping in and pulling the rug from under them

You wouldn't happen to be clumping a whole group of people (Muslims) into the same camp would you?
Last time I checked "they" were killing Muslims too.

It looks like history has caught up with peoples opinions and a phased withdrawl is here...albeit two years later. :rolleyes:

[odon]

What do we do then?

Nothing. Supposedly the Iraqi army will sort it out.

[Dylan- Peace]

The war was completely wrong. We should never have entered, and we need to stop following Americia in everything they do.

Peace.

[yumyum2k5]

The way I see it, The only reason you should have an army is for defence, not for invasion. If every country lived by the mantra there would never be wars at all!


The way I see it.......America attacks Iraq for apparently having nuclear weapons, when to my knowledge the only country to ever USE a nuke has been America.....And if im not mistaken wasnt America the invading force in Iraq? just like Hitler was for Austria?

Wars are pointless. Pull out the troops immediatly and dont bother sending them again is my opinion. We can only make things worse by leaving our troops there because the Iraqi people no doubt see them as the enemy now, and even our own Asian communities are starting to become militant about the whole situation, If our 'government' doesnt listen to its people soon, there will be a race war, and that is something we can never come back from.

[odon]

The way I see it, The only reason you should have an army is for defence, not for invasion. If every country lived by the mantra there would never be wars at all!

Nagh, weak countries need defending from their leaders and internal strife.


The way I see it.......America attacks Iraq for apparently having nuclear weapons, when to my knowledge the only country to ever USE a nuke has been America.....

I think it was more for Biological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare) Chemical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare) WMD.

And if im not mistaken wasnt America the invading force in Iraq? just like Hitler was for Austria?

Kind of:


"Coalation of the willing":

1 Usage over Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing#Usage_over_Iraq)
Not quite the same as Hitler...lol.
What a bizarre comparison, though I can see why you did it.


Wars are pointless. Pull out the troops immediatly and dont bother sending them again is my opinion. We can only make things worse by leaving our troops there because the Iraqi people no doubt see them as the enemy now, and even our own Asian communities are starting to become militant about the whole situation, If our 'government' doesnt listen to its people soon, there will be a race war, and that is something we can never come back from.


No offence meant, but it feels like you have come from 2003.
The situation is completely different now.
Some of the Muslim community are becoming militant.
But, I imagine you saw the protest against the troops the other day...
Well, those guys sent out 20,000 leaflets calling Muslims to protest...guess how many turned up?
Less than 20 people.

[Joshua Tree]

You wouldn't happen to be clumping a whole group of people (Muslims) into the same camp would you?
Last time I checked "they" were killing Muslims too.

I wouldn't worry about j700 odon, the guy seems to be a troll from my experience.

Well to answer the original question (although somewhat redundant now) yes we should be withdrawing, in a way that doesn't leave the country totally up sh*t creek without a paddle.

I think we went in because we seem to be embedded up America's arse, which really enrages me. I hope that Obama proves to be less of a warmonger.

[odon]

I wouldn't worry about j700 odon, the guy seems to be a troll from my experience.

He might be. But, he does seem to share some peoples opinions.

"I think we went in because we seem to be embedded up America's arse"

:rolleyes:

[lithium]

Not quite the same as Hitler...lol.
What a bizarre comparison, though I can see why you did it.

I don't think this is just Godwin's law, the comparison is a justifiable one in that the Nuremberg judges after WWII firmly established the principle that the instigation of a war of aggression against a sovereign state is a crime. The UK and the USA were the instigators of a war of aggression against a sovereign state, they invaded Iraq with the clear intention of overthrowing the recognised government of that state, it was not defence, it was not humanitarian intervention. The dodgy legal acrobatics of trying to say that there had been a continuous state of war between the UK and Iraq since 1991 was a tacit recognition of this fact, and I don't think that convinced anyone...

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
- US prosecutor at Nuremberg

ie. starting a war between nations is one of the worst things which can be done, because we fully understand what starting a war between nations entails - hundreds of thousands, or millions dead; exactly what we have seen in Iraq since 2003 as a consequence of the war started there by the USA and the UK.

[Joshua Tree]

"I think we went in because we seem to be embedded up America's arse"

:rolleyes:

Do you disagree?

[odon]

Do you disagree?

Perhaps we are too close to America sometimes.
But, no I don't think we are "embedded up America's arse."
It seems more of a derogatory thing to say, merely because we agreed with them.
If we followed Obama - or even Bush - on an enviromental endeavour or something you approved of, would you say we did it because we were "embedded up America's arse"?
I think you might use other language than that.;)

[odon]

That's a fantastic assertion, lithium. Well done, sir.

When a similar court states that Iraq war was a "War of aggression", then perhaps it won't be so bizarre.
You might be right, it is not quite Godwins law, but not far off.
It would depend on his rationale for using that particular e.g.
I'm sure there are less deplorable e.gs of a "war of aggression" than Hitlers.
Perhaps he did not know any.
Perhaps his reasoning was not the "war of aggression" arguerment at all, it was the very ropey comparison many people make.
Hopefully he will respond sometime soon.

[lithium]

That's a fantastic assertion, lithium. Well done, sir.

When a similar court states that Iraq war was a "War of aggression", then perhaps it won't be so bizarre.

No, the comparison holds on its merits in the absence of a war crimes trial. Since such things are orchestrated by the powerful and the victors, it's fairly unlikely the legality of the Iraq war will ever be tested in such a way.

But we've been through this a ton of times, matthew:)

[odon]

No, the comparison holds on its merits in the absence of a war crimes trial.

I'd repeat.
"It would depend on his rationale for using that particular e.g."
Untill then, I think it unfair to put words into his mouth.

[lithium]

Not particularly interested in why this poster used that comparison. It has been used by others for the reasons I've outlined, as such it's a valid comparison to make on its own terms, and one which holds its merits

[odon]

Not particularly interested in why this poster used that comparison. It has been used by others for the reasons I've outlined, as such it's a valid comparison to make on its own terms, and one which holds its merits

Yes but, I am interested.
I know it has been used by others for the reasons you have outlined.
Like I said, if that was his reasoning it would not seem so bizarre.
If he used it because he was comparing Bush with Hitler in relation to the dispicable crimes Hitler orchestrated, then that would be completely unfair...don't you think?

[lithium]

I would say it's self evident that such a comparison was not being made.

[odon]

I would say it's self evident that such a comparison was not being made.

Well, we shall see, hopefully.

[lithium]

If we're talking about Bush's "despicable crimes" I think even he has some way to go to catch up with Hitler. His body count probably doesn't quite match Hitler's. Though you have to admire the fact that he gave it a pretty good try.

[odon]

If we're talking about Bush's "despicable crimes" I think even he has some way to go to catch up with Hitler. His body count probably doesn't quite match Hitler's. Though you have to admire the fact that he gave it a pretty good try.

Yeah, those gas chambers didn't quite get finished before Obama came into power. I bet Bush is kept up late thinking: "six more months and I could have finished off another 4 million. Darn."

[lithium]

:smilielol5:
It probably wouldn't be that hard to compile a chart of the world leaders responsible for the most deaths over the course of history; those who died as a result of the wars they started, those killed by their regimes at home ... I'm betting Bush may make the top ten...

[odon]

:smilielol5:
It probably wouldn't be that hard to compile a chart of the world leaders responsible for the most deaths over the course of history; those who died as a result of the wars they started, those killed by their regimes at home ... I'm betting Bush may make the top ten...

Maybe you could give it a go.
I'd say perhaps No. 9. if we kept it to the 20-21st century.
But, after No. 3 there is a major fucking drop off...as Bill hicks might say.

[yumyum2k5]

I made the comparison based on the fact they both invaded and destroyed countries.

They were not attacked, they were not even threatened.

I suspect Bush attacked to gain precious oil reserves and im sure Hitler attacked on some egotistical power trip but the reasons are not what I am comparing, just the act of attack.

I think its a fair comparison, obviously as that is what I posted.

[opel diamond]

We can only make things worse by leaving our troops there because the Iraqi people no doubt see them as the enemy now

that i know for fact is bollocks. the Iraqi army are working with our armed forces and are being trained to keep there country stable once our troops withdraw later this year. the goverment have requested for some 200 troops to stay in Iraq for longer to help the iraqi people, army and goverment in the initial stages of regaining stablised control of the country. not something the goverment would ask for if them and there people thought of our troops as there enemys. there are a few groups of people within iraq that no doubt want out troops gone, but that is only to an reintroduce terroist activity that our troops have now got under control. the majority of the people there are happy to now have a stablising of there country.

[odon]

I made the comparison based on the fact they both invaded and destroyed countries.

They were not attacked, they were not even threatened.

I suspect Bush attacked to gain precious oil reserves and im sure Hitler attacked on some egotistical power trip but the reasons are not what I am comparing, just the act of attack.

I think its a fair comparison, obviously as that is what I posted.

Fair enough. The rationalisation of both wars was completely different.
And one did rebuild that which they destroyed. Trained indigenous troops to defend themselves and returned sovereignty (along with a myriad of other things). But, fair enough, chap. Fair enough. :)

[odon]

lol - perfect timing, opel.

[lithium]

Fair enough. The rationalisation of both wars was completely different.
And one did rebuild that which they destroyed.

In all fairness to Hitler, he wasn't really given a chance to rebuild the countries he destroyed. I'm sure he had every intention of making good his newly conquered lands as the glorious new Reich, once he'd solved the Jew problem:)

[lithium]

that i know for fact is bollocks. the Iraqi army are working with our armed forces and are being trained to keep there country stable once our troops withdraw later this year. the goverment have requested for some 200 troops to stay in Iraq for longer to help the iraqi people, army and goverment in the initial stages of regaining stablised control of the country. not something the goverment would ask for if them and there people thought of our troops as there enemys. there are a few groups of people within iraq that no doubt want out troops gone, but that is only to an reintroduce terroist activity that our troops have now got under control. the majority of the people there are happy to now have a stablising of there country.

The government and military of a country is not the same thing as the population of a country, and does not necessarily represent the same interests and concerns. In the case of Iraq it's questionable how much legitimacy the government and military truly have in the view of the wider population, being so heavily representative of and supported by US interests. This has been one of the continuing exacerbating factors in the ongoing violence since 2003.

[odon]

In all fairness to Hitler, he wasn't really given a chance to rebuild the countries he destroyed. I'm sure he had every intention of making good his newly conquered lands as the glorious new Reich, once he'd solved the Jew problem:)

In all fairness to Hitler...:smilielol5:
Funniest line i've read in ages.

[lithium]

Glad you've developed a sense of humour finally matthew...

[odon]

I wouldn't mind but I reckon you meant it...

[lithium]

<facepalm>

[odon]

<facepalm>


Now who has lost their sense of humour. ;)

[opel diamond]

The government and military of a country is not the same thing as the population of a country, and does not necessarily represent the same interests and concerns. In the case of Iraq it's questionable how much legitimacy the government and military truly have in the view of the wider population, being so heavily representative of and supported by US interests. This has been one of the continuing exacerbating factors in the ongoing violence since 2003.


well if the rest of the country wanted them out there would be a lot more terrorist influence surely, and these groups would be getting stronger and more powerful as resentment sets in that we are still there? this isnt the case, as the country has now stablised and there are hardly any attacks in Iraq anymore surely that demonstrates the majoritys consensus that we are not the enemy as they are no longer bombing us every 30 seconds and are happy to let us work with them and troops can patrol in the towns of iraq and chat with iraqi civilians without reprisals from anyone.....hence there is hardly anymore ongoing violence that you speak of. It's afghanistan where we are most certainly still not welcome not Iraq i would say.

and Odon....my timing is always impecable :D

[odon]

and Odon....my timing is always impecable :D

:cheers2: