If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Political, military or money saving?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7023366.stm
Gordon has announced we'll be cutting the number of troops in Iraq by 1000 and has said hopefully they'll be home by Christmas (suggesting, if he used that phrase, he hasn't quite picked up it's historical connations)
Is it a start of Gordon trying to distance himself from the Blair legacy? Or is a military decision that the job's done in Basra? Or is that armies cost money and Brown is desperately trying to balance the books?
Any views?
Gordon has announced we'll be cutting the number of troops in Iraq by 1000 and has said hopefully they'll be home by Christmas (suggesting, if he used that phrase, he hasn't quite picked up it's historical connations)
Is it a start of Gordon trying to distance himself from the Blair legacy? Or is a military decision that the job's done in Basra? Or is that armies cost money and Brown is desperately trying to balance the books?
Any views?
0
Comments
It's a pisspoor miserable situation for the Iraqis as well as the British soldiers stationed there, at the end of the day.
Oh fuck off you simplistic twat.
How come they weren't blowing themselves up under Saddam? You ever stop to think that maybe the war and the resulting power vaccum has created the ethno-religious tension we see today?
They were. Alot of Iraq has been a violent hellhole for decades.
You know, I understand the oil argument.
However, I saw statistics recently that placed the annual oil revenue at something like 40% of the cost of keeping soldiers armed / supplied / going out there.
Under Saddam it was violent, but it was state endorsed violence, rather than the mindless terror we see today. Soldiers would arrest and / or execute people on the street, and citizens did live in a climate of terror. Of course, if you don't get on the wrong side of the state, it was a comfortable living.
Now, everyone is subject to random attacks because everyone is desperate.
Like I've said before, it's desperation that fuels attacks and violence, when people think they have no other choice or that 'it doesn't matter' anyway.
Yeah, but if they stoped blowing themselfs up, started to work togather they could turn what is a hell hole into a great place, but they chose not to
To the point of civil war? Sectarianism was never a rife problem under Saddam.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Read my first post.
yeah the sunnis shia and kurds would never have thought of killing each other back then
Meanwhile...
They didn't under Saddam. Though it's a moot point, sure there have always been ethno-religious tensions in Iraq but to simply say they should stop killing each other and all get along like the juvenile rantings of Territt displays a crass ignorance on the situation at hand. He doesn't even consider to look at the wider political/historical context and see why they're doing this.
Basically, to him, it's all their fault and nothing to do with the invasion itself. Bollocks.
Deaths due to terrorism and sectarian violence under Saddam, estimate per year = 0
Deaths due to terrorism and sectarian violence after Allied invasion, estimate per year = 150,000- 300,000
Granted that Saddam did a lot of killing, but nowhere near such levels.
few news reports of it from pre 2003? no shit!
Do you think they're lying?
yes really the sunnis shias and kurds were one big happy family who lvoed each other and never dared hurt each other for religious or cultural reasons ever. christ.
Saddam running the government didnt make the violence any less sectarian...
There was a lot of killing and brutalising done by Saddam's forces (the chief reason why there was no mayhem on the streets like we see today) but certainly nowhere near the extent we're seeing now.
You are right that there have been disputes, wars and fights in that region for millennia. All the more reason not to have ousted Saddam, specially since the Allies had no post-war plans whatsoever and no interest in the welfare of the Iraqis either.
The current situation is 100% the fault of G. W. Bush and Yo Blair and their appalling actions.
Point out where I said there was never any sectarian violence in Iraq?
I'm just reffering to Territts point that it's not simply a case of everyone just stoppping blowing each other up. That there are reasons why there is close to a Civil War there and that the occupation of Iraq is not helping the situation. Jeez.
Number of Iranian insurgent/weapons in Iraq under Saddam also = 0
It's amazing how little violence there is under totalitarian regimes. It's like pointing out that there was no terrorism under Pinochet FFS
This had actually had been warned against in abundance by those who were against the war and even many amongst the warmongers had their reservations about the the readiness (or lack thereof) to deal with the situation after Saddam's regime had been removed.
The 'cure' has turned out to be a million times worse than the disease. But then is that a surprise to anyone?
You mean in terms of civil unrest, right?
Something which, under a totalitarian regime, could never have happened because of the oppressive approach.
That the sectarianism was bubbling under the surface is overlooked by those who want to abuse the US for their actions. That the only violence in the past - which was, incendently, of sectarian nature - was that perpetrated by the governing regime is also overlooked.
That Iran are in the middle of it, is another factor glossed over.
Still, so long as we can bash the US eh?
Fact is that a power vacuum was created, and added to that is the push by those who never supported the war to get the troops out ASP. Something which would only increase the power vacuum. Note that the violence in Iraq isn't primarily against the Brist or even the US force, it by Iraqis/Iranians/Saudis and against Iraqis.
Pulling troops out won't stop that.
Forgive me for believing a 'solution' that causes more casualties in 4 years than the 'problem' itself had managed in several decades is a very poor solution indeed.
I don't know if the sectarianism had been bubbling under the surface, but if it was that is even more the reason not to have kicked out Saddam. Certainly not without a clue how to deal with the situation afterwards.
Seeing as the US was the main instigator and perpetrator of the war and invasion, that it did so under false pretenses and lies and that its actions have caused the deaths of more than 1m people now and quite probably condemned the country to many years of suffering if not its eventual destruction, I think the US deserves all the bashing it gets and then some, yes.
I think you give too much credit to the anti-war movement. They did not have any influence in the outcome of the war, the invasion or the number of troops stationed there- certainly for the first year or two, by which time the insurgency and power vacuum had been fully established.
I fear nothing will stop the violence and eventual break up of Iraq followed by decades of wars and hostility between its regions.
Kicking out every last blood-sucking foreign contractor and company, returning Iraq's natural resources to its people and replacing all Allied troops with UN ones might just give the Iraqis a small chance by defusing some of the anger that keeps recruiting new fighters to 'the cause'. Though to be honest I doubt it.
We should comit more to Afghanistan and just leave Iraq the fuck alone now. It's gone. Afghanistan we can make progress - we have already.
Let the Americans enjoy Iraq.
And that is the nub of the problem. Still we can;t cry over spilt milk, you have to deal with the hand you have right now.
The false pretence that Saddam had not complied with UN Resolutions you mean. Nah, won't wash. The disagreement in the UN was about what action to take, not that he hadn't breached those resolutions. Remember that.
You think?
I think that we are seeing the Vietnam factor all over again. The insurgents know that they just need to hang on, kill a few more innocents, wait for the political debate to end with whthdrawl of US forces and then fill the vacuum they leave behind.
You really think the 'insurgents' have much political knowledge/access to the outside world?
Agreed. The fact that the Iraqis have been getting trained up and can now (seemingly) can take over some of the role of maintaining order is most opportune for Brown.
Personally, I can't see the Iraqis holding things together for long though.