Should Britain Withdraw From Iraq?

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Nothing. Supposedly the Iraqi army will sort it out.

 

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

Peace.

 

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.

 

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

I think it was more for Biological Chemical WMD.

Kind of:


"Coalation of the willing":

• 1 Usage over Iraq

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

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.

 

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.

 

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"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

Well, we shall see, hopefully.