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
For those against the Iraq war....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Are you largely in favour of a pull-out now, or do some of you feel that because we have created this mess (in part), we should stay put, and try to improve the stadard of life for the civilians?
The innocent loss of life is horific, but I'm not sure a complete pull-out would help at this stage. Tough one!
The innocent loss of life is horific, but I'm not sure a complete pull-out would help at this stage. Tough one!
0
Comments
I think the troops should stay put, it would be so harmful for them to leave the Iraqi people to it right now and just as bad as what they did last time round.
I have a close friend who served in Iraq for a few months last year and he said all the locals he spoke to were very much in favour of the presence of the British troops. Obviously he didn't get a true reflection of the response of the iraqi people just the ones who welcomed him.
Made up from what country exactly? The Swiss?
Lets face it, only the Americans (except China) have anywhere near the troop numbers and equipment to do it, dress them in different uniforms if you like but it will make bugger all difference.
So, our options are either;
- Pour a good hundred thousand more troops in, really occupy and force order and restore public services.
- Pull out and leave them to a horrid fate.
Where are your extra 100,000 troops coming from?
You really think that would make the slightest difference? You can put a silk hat on a pig, but its still a pig.
The US largely, plus anyone else we can get to join in.
And I do think it would make a difference for UN troops to patrol instead of individual nations, which was the problem in Rwanda if you remember.
I'm not saying that either of my suggestions are the right ones, or that either will happen. I'm just suggesting that we dont have anywhere near the troop numbers to do it fully, and with a country as unstable as Iraq now is, we have to either fully occupy or not, there is no half measures.
You're probably right, if those 100,000 extra troops were UN ones it would probably help, but just changing the uniforms of the current troops would make little change.
If "Peace" is to be restored the only real option is not to go on as the occupation is going on, but to impose a state control system in the same vein as that Saddam had. Use fear to keep the peace. Use secret police to maintain the oppression. It may be totally against human rights, it may be totally illegal, it is completely unethical, but it would return Iraq to the status quo.
To go about things in a peaceful and ethical way will not restore peace or rebuild the nation while rebel forces continue to fight. So, in that case, leave the nation to those who would destroy it and pull out.
I dont know really.
Nooo
That really saddens me to hear people speak like that. Nobody should have to live in fear and oppression! Thats just sweeping problems under the rug and it would never ever end.
Leaving the nation to those that would destroy it would also mean securing a life of fear for the people who do not wish to destroy it.
I was not in favour of the stupidset war ever, but yeah. We made the fucking mess, it is therefore our job to clear it up.
The trouble is, as GWAR say:
"You can destroy an army
You can kill a man
But you can't kill terror"
Enjoy.
Its true as well. We made a right fucking cock up of the Middle East. Heh.
Its now real in Iraq because we're there. There wasnt daily suicide bombings under Sadam.
But there was daily oppression and fear of murder if you didn't conform...echoes of Hitler I feel.
This will be a long battle, some people think you can invade a country and expect it all to be fine the next day. Iraq will take years to fix as iot's never been fixed before.
The only thing we're doing in there is delaying the inevitable. Though not for much longer.
You almost seem keen that the nascent democracy in Iraq fails and is taken over by a neo-fascist reinvorgorated Baathist regime or a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists (or even worse falls into a bloody civil war).
Regardless of whether or not the original invasion was a good idea its surely in the best long-term interests of both the UK, US and Iraq (as well as France, Germany) for a stable democratic Iraq.
Or is the ability to say 'I told you so' more important?
No we will stay there and complete the job like real people, not those who give up at the sight of trouble.
But we must as well keep a sense of reality. Situation is getting worse, no better. No amount of US and British troops is going to change that. Just as they still refuse to concede they were wrong to have gone to war and that they did so illegally, they are now refusing to admit they have no control of the country and little chance of ever gaining it, because withdrawing now would be an admission of failure and we cannot have that- oh no.
Never mind that up to 60 innocent Iraqis become patrons of Baghdad City Morgue every single day. Best to keep the illusion.
I doubt nothing much can be done now- and for that the two war criminal scumbags who started all this should rot in jail for the rest of their lives. But if there is the tiniest hope of peace and prosperity in Iraq, it must be through an immediate and full withdrawal of all occupation forces and the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces.
And before you say anything, it doesn't matter if UN forces have far fewer numbers and far less significant firepower. It should be pretty obvious to everyone now that firepower and numbers account for bugger all in Iraq.
Not sure I understand. You opposed the war because it was likely to cause the fall of democracy in Iraq? I don't suppose you could mention what democracy that was - as the only Government in Iraq I recall was Saddam's and I'm pretty sure few would call that democratic
I suspect that's pandering to your own political views as much as a proper analysis of the situation. In plenty of places in Iraq its pretty quiet
http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx
This map shows the coalition casualties, as you can see in plenty of places there have been next to no military casualties. The worst fighting is concentrated in 4 provinces (5 if you include Baghdad). In most of the country there may be the occassional shooting, but even if that's decreased. The media (and the military) tend to concentrate on where the trouble is.
Now i'm not saying that its over, or even that we're at the beginning of the end, but its not nearly as out of control as the doom mongers suggest.
And to a certain extent it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The insurgents rely on doom mongers becoming such a force that the US will be forced to leave Iraq and leave the Iraqis to their tender devices.
I'm confused on why you would want the people who pull them out of cars and shoot them or suicide bomb them to win. Which is what you're saying.
Who would the UN forces be? The insurgents are unlikely to stop attacking the forces. They don't only want the US/UK out but to overthrow the Iraqi government (which however flawed it might be remains the best chance for a democratic Iraq).
I actually agree with you on firepower. Counter-insurgency (and war) isn't neccessarily won by who has the biggest guns, but who best uses them. And to be honest if you remove the the US, UK and Australia, you removing three of the five nations who would be the backbone of any UN force - leaving just the Canucks and the French. And if you think the US are tough when it comes to counter-insurgency you aint see nothing if the French decide to get involved.
The rest of the UN would be made up of the normal riff-raff the UN brings in like the Nigerians, the Belgiums and the Pakistanis. Past experience of UN operations doesn't hold out much hope that they're any good at it.
As an aside I was ambivalent about the war before it started. You can tell an argument by the company it keeps and it was a toss-up between supporting an argument put forward by Blair and Hoon that Saddam needed to be deposed and that put forward by a mixture of hard left and right wingers that Saddam was actaully all right and it was Bush and Blair who were the equibvalent to Hitler. Neither side was at the time able to convince me it was right (and both convinced me that any proper understanding of the situation was of a lesser prioirity than accussing their opponents of being at best in league with devil and at worst the devil himself)
What made me a supporter was the old fashioned view that when the British Army goes to war I support them (and I'd have expected the British public to do the same for me - they often don't but that's not my problem), especially given I had family and friends deployed.
Secondly was the feeling that once we're in the worst of all worlds is breaking Iraq and then leaving it in chaos.
Thirdly it was this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3253783.stm
I admit to being biased. I've stood by a mass grave in Bosnia while they brought out the remains. Any doubts I had about Iraq vanished once I read this story. I have no problem with saying that those who seek to return Iraq to the barbaric rule of its previous leaders need to be fought.
yep
So either we do more of the same to the poor results we've been getting, we pull out or we do a lot more.
Its exactly the same in Afghanistan, we havent anywhere near the troops needed there either.
Yes yes, nice rhetoric. What does it mean though?
And while the US and its allies unfortunately cannot do to Iran what they did to Saddam's regime Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons unchecked while we ensure security and stability prevails in Iraq and Afghanistan over violence and terrorism.
Funny how the Iraqis themselves and others keep telling us the country is in the very verge of civil war.
Frankly I don't understand how anyone could see the situation as any less than extremely serious.
I somehow don't think the thousands of people queuing up to join the insurgency from all over the Middle East are being influenced by debate in Europe and the US.
I should think it's the footage of wedding parties being wiped out by laser guided bombs and 2 year old children executed by US troops that is making them join.
Not at all. I want them to lose. But they won't be defeated by the Allied occupation. Not in a thousand years. Not with the most advanced stealth fighters money can buy.
But what we should be trying to do here is to starve off support for the insurgency. And the best way to do so is to remove the Allied occupiers from the area- which are the main focus of anger for tens of millions of people across the region.
The UN forces should be made up of mostly Arab/Muslim troops, and those from neutral countries.
I'm not too concerned about their war credentials anyway. A 'war' against the insurgents is unwinnable by force.
Other than perhaps that twat Galloway (who doesn't represent anyone other than himself), who on earth has ever suggested Saddam Hussein was alright?
But just because Saddam was a nasty piece of shit does not mean anyone had to remove him in such manner. Especially when the circumstances told anyone with common sense it would make things worse, not better.
I don't think British troops are being blamed for the war. The fault lies with the leader who sent them there.
In my view the best way to support the troops is to campaign to get them out of there double quick.
Unfortunately many if not most people who ended up in those graves were dumped there while Saddam was shaking hands with our glorious Western leaders and collecting the latest cache of weapoons, both conventional and WMDs.
Half the reason why the place is still a mess is because we are still there. Get them out the fuck and get the UN in. History has taught us not to mess with these cunts, better leave them alone and let them get along with their own lives and with the UN to give them help where it's needed. Not the shit we see now.