Russethouse Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 How on earth are we going to get out of Iraq ? Another 4 serviceman killed today. The American mid term elections show the American people are keen to leave Iraq and there are mutterings in the press that we(the UK) could get stuck there.........so how do we withdraw without leaving a bigger mess than there was when we went in ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 I really don't want to sound negative, Gay, but we aren't going to get out and leave a better place, and anyway the USA has no intention of getting out as such, if it did have that intention it wouldn't be spending so much time and money building the huge bases which it would like to live in, apparently they are the size of self contained cities.All that's happening at present is an attempt at more window dressing.Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 No doubt many people have already seen this.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29761977781347669Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Chis, thanks but it's a 50 minute movie and I'll have to watch it tomorrow.Gay, thanks for starting a serious thread like this. My own feeling is that we will never know if what we leave behind is a bigger mess than before. It's all hypothetical now. I felt then when 'we' invaded, that we, and our children would somehow be 'paying' for our actions for a long time. In a way, that was a selfish way of looking at it, but perhaps an understandable one at the time. What I didn't realise was that 'we' would all but destroy whatever chance there was for the people of Iraq to come to their own conclusions about the best way forward.I'll watch the film tomorrow Chris. John Pilger. One of the good guys for how many years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted November 12, 2006 Author Share Posted November 12, 2006 Chris, Don't you think the mid term elections have chaged the climate in the USA ? I think its clear that the average American voter wants out of Iraq, and I'll be amazed if the same is not true of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 I guess that I'm old enough to remember clearly following the war in Vietnam, it wasn't public opinion that ended that occupation, it was being kicked out, and the casualty rate was far, far greater than in Iraq.The population in the UK was never in favour of the invasion of Iraq, did that make a difference, NO.Manipulation by the powers that be, and basically a passive population who are 99% too busy with their day to day lives, that and the fact that it's a bit late now, the situation has been created and it's a mess.Please do watch the video.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibault Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Unfortunately, what has happened in Iraq was only too predictable. In fact, many commentators said as much just before the invasion. It seems that there was a foolish belief that the troops would be greeted with flowers and smiling people joyful at being liberated. But think about the early days - all the looting (except the oil ministry which was guarded - what does that tell us?), the destruction of the infrastructure etc.What happened to all the money for reconstruction? Remember all those US firms who got the lucrative contracts (mainly linked to the neo-cons like Cheney) and the fact that UK firms could only be sub-contractors. Why are there so many people without a proper water, sewage and electricty supply still?There may have been a plan for the invasion, but it doesen't seem there was a plan for afterwards. Now all of a sudden there is a move to withdraw. Is there a plan for that? Based on past decisions/actions, it would seem not. Now we have the wonderful spectacle of Bush, Blair and the rest of the gung-ho brigade desperately searching for a form of words to disguise the fact that the whole policy has failed.And for those who say well, at least we got rid of Saddam - remember he had been contained by the UN policy - which seemed to have been working. Perhaps we should look at the number of Iraquis killed by Saddam between the end of the first gulf war and the start of the second gulf war and compare that figure with the number of Iraquis killed since the invasion. Oh, I forgot, the US doesn't keep count of the Iraqui dead [:@]There are scores of murderous tyrants in power all over the world. If regime change and the bringing of democracy was a legitimate reason to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, then we would all be at war non-stop. Or does it only apply where there are natural resources that we need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastines Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Thibault has said it all. If you want to upset the population, first destroy the infrastructure,that secures plenty of work for the struggling U.S, economy. The smart bombs weren't smart enough to get rid of one tribal family. Turn a blind eye to Mugabe and what goes on in many,many countries of the world. The main thing seems to be that they don't understand the culture of the people/country that they want to put right.Half the tribes/races and religions of the world seem to hate the other half and seem to have done so before Blair and Bush decided to play God. The main purpose seems to be financial and the Armanents Industry obviously have loud voices and deep pockets.Regards getting out, the easy way would be to pack-up today and leave.They seemed to have a better life before.Regards. 5mins St.Malo. www.ourinns.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Am I imagining it, or did I read in the French press, recently, that the civilian dead in Iraq since the invasion is estimated at THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION?And Saddam has been sentenced to death for ordering the deaths of 147 people?Something not quite right with those figures if they are correct[:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastines Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Does make you wonder who is the Dictator! I used to think that politicians were elected to serve the population,I think I was about 10 years old at the time.Regards. 5 mins St.Malo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 The US Department of Defense (and can you trust any governmentorganisation that cannot spell properly?) defines terrorism as being"the unlawful use of, or threatened use of violence to inculcate fear,intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to thepursuit of goals that are generally political, religious orideological." Presumably they don't view what they are doing in Iraq asbeing unlawful, because the campaign of "fear and awe" seems to meetevery other criterion.I have no idea how they are going to extract themselves from this mess,but I suspect an awful lot of people (but most of them Iraqi andtherefore not actually real people) will get killed when it happens.So, so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Head Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 <<<So, so sad.>>>More than that Jon, criminal charges could easily be justified against the politicians.It's just catch22, there are no answers at the moment, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. For the civilians and troops on the ground, on both sides, some will live and some won't. I do believe the West has a moral responsibility to do their best for the innocent civilians it has put in perilous danger.The 'insurgents' will never be beaten, at best it's a good training ground for our proffessional soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pip Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 MOH heard a debate on the radio the other day about Iraq. Apparently, sad as it is, under Saddam's rule, as long as the civilians didn't speak out against him they could go about their daily lives. Different religions etc. rubbed along together. Now it appears they are fighting amongst themselves and are in more danger than before. It's a high price to pay for 'freedom.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patf Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I think that Thibault is right when he mentions the need for natural resources as the motivation behind the invasion. France already had an understanding on this so didn't need to be involved in the war. Most if not all wars are driven by economic motives ie greed. Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 I know there is no logic to this but it makes me so cross when we have war in Iraq to protect oil supplies ( I believe) when most western countries have been more than happy to trade with China, a country that until very recently sanctioned the killing of baby girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris pp Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Yes, Gay, but China is a big Country and they do have weapons of mass destruction, winning a military war in Iraq was always going to be easy.Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pip Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 It doesn't appear to be as easy as was first thought though Chris. Does the requisition of oil balance out the huge amounts of money being spent on manpower, weaponry and, most important of all, the enormous loss of life ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 [quote user="Pip"]It doesn't appear to be as easy as was first thoughtthough Chris. Does the requisition of oil balance outthe huge amounts of money being spent on manpower, weaponry and,most important of all, the enormous loss of life ?[/quote]Geopolitically? Oh yes.The logic runs like this: Despite appearances, the US is not as dependent on the ME for oilsupplies as it once was. It is seen as very likely, for example, that they will bethe first nation to crack the technical nut of non-oil based personaltransport. The right to drive is sacred. The US needs China. China supplies the low cost tat that keepsthe US economy flowing and a market for high tech goods that the USmakes - aircraft, for example, which is why they get so p****d everytime Airbus sells a plane. China doesn't actually need the US as much as the US would like.There are plenty of markets for the products of this cheap-laboureconomy. China does need oil. As long as the US could influence the majorsuppliers (ie Saudi and Iraq under UN "control") and the price could bedenominated in dollars, the US would be happy: each US dollar thatleaves the US never to return is worth about 98 cents to the UStreasuary.:Two things happened: The major one was that after 11th September 2001, the extent offundamentalist feeling in Saudi became obvious. The US realised thatthey could no longer depend on Saudi to stay on side. Ditto Kuwait. The minor one was that Iran suddenly popped up and said that theymight just want paying for their (considerable) supplies of oil inEuros. Now, if they went it seemed likely that an awful lot of ME andNorth African produces would follow suite, and perhaps even some SouthAmerican: Venezuala is always looking for ways to jibe the US, forexample. This would not be good news for the US dollar.To counter this, the US had little choice but to invade Iraq. It wouldgain de facto control over how the second largest oil reserves in theworld were marketed, with China likely to be the biggest customer, andthese sales would be made in dollars. In addition, the "legitimate"presence of substantial US forces in the region would (hopefully)bolster friendly elements in Saudi and keep the pesky Iranians in theirbox.The EU economy is not as vulnerable to these factors as the US (thoughit is to other factors - the relationship with Russia, for example), sothere was no economic imperative to join in. In fact, for the EU it wasbetter to be seen to be opposing US actions as they stood to profitconsiderably from what they saw as the inevitable balls up that wouldresult: there is still a good chance that the US will withdraw theirforces in the face of the insurrection, that EU forces will move in asan interim peace keeping measure and that they will get to wear the mantle of liberator.That the UK went along with the US says a great deal about theperception of the EU in the higher reaches of governement. The UK stoodto gain very little - some crumbs from the master's table perhaps - butstill prefered that course of action rather than jepordising the"special relationship." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Ignoring the oil related political reasons for invading Iraq, the basic question now is how best to get out. I believe that one of the basic problems for the majority of people in the 'west' is the assumption that the Iraqi people want 'democracy' in our western mould. The Arab people throughout the Middle East are tribal by culture, tradition and desire. Their overwhelming allegience is to their religion (whatever sect) and their tribal leaders. The concept of western style democracy is anathema. They also respect a 'strong' leader who rules by his own will or that of the tribe, not by the power of voters.The US and UK leaders also seriously underestimated the power that Islam has over the every day lives of Muslims. This is evidenced by the fact that the Imams and Mullahs can wind up their flock at the drop of a hat by claiming that the invasion is a war against Islam.The Arabic press and Arabic language websites push this version of reality constantly and believe me, it is seriously believed even by the more educated Arabs.The Koran clearly states that killing enemies of Islam is not wrong, in fact its to be desired. Therein lies the justification for violence.There is no easy exit method. Pulling out all western troops will definitely lead to an escalation of factional violence until some one or other emerges as the winning strong man ( much as Saddam did). This situation cannot be stopped, only slowed down by giving the factions another target - our troops.It should also be realised that Iraq is, in its present form, an 'artificial' country. It was created by the UK in the 1920s ( I think). The natural borders do not include the Kurds in the North.In conclusion, I believe that we should 'bite the bullet' and pull out, leaving the Iraqi people to sort them selves out, yes there will be an orgy of bloodshed but could it, realistically, be any worse than the ongoing daily death toll with no end in sight. Those who say we should stay and sort out the problems that we created are living in cloud cuckoo land. The problems will remain as long as we remain as Aunt Sally's in the shooting gallery, I have no desire to see any more British children left fatherless, particularly my own grandchildren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 powerdesal - very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Bumping the thread. Still not viewed the whole film Chris linked to.[:$]Always worth reading. If you have the time, (and the stomach) from the start.http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.