Home Politics & Debate
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.

Iraq: You predictions Please.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Anyone got any predictions for what will happen in Iraq?

Seeing this news report makes me wonder how long it will be before it's all stable again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1955915,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,1927660,00.html

Makes me wonder if the average person in Iraq wasn't a lot better off (on a day to day basis) when Saddam was in charge

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i predict a riot, i predict a riot.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Desent into total civil war. Allied troops do a runner. Country desintegrates and splits into different territories. Wars and fights between factions for decades to come. Iran the only real winner.

    We have done a fine job of liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to the Middle East haven't we... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Desent into total civil war. Allied troops do a runner. Country desintegrates and splits into different territories. Wars and fights between factions for decades to come. Iran the only real winner.

    We have done a fine job of liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to the Middle East haven't we... :rolleyes:

    indeed... It's now even worse that it was before... oh well....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The war was a total mess and the execution of it was appaling. They should have been prepared to clean up the mess after themselves (note that no deaths incurred during the actual war but the massive casualties, sectarian violence and all the shit happening was brought out after the war). Fundamentally, I am not and have never been against the invasion of Iraq, but I whole-heartedly disagree with the attitude of the countries sending coalition forces (primarily Britain and U.S.A). I do, contrary to the majority of the apparent sentiment on this board, believe that a war against Iraq could have, with the same casus belli, lead to success, by taking greater consideration into the aftermath of the war.

    Otherwise, thumbs down to U.S.A, comme d'habitude.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't really know how anybody can with a clear conscience hanker for an Iraq ruled by Saddam. We should not apologise for our part in the overthrow of one of the most vicious regimes remaining in the 21st century. The new Iraq despite symbolising hopes for democracy and liberty will be forever marked by some violent initial years – making Iraq no different to many other countries around the world that are now functioning democracies. Success in Iraq will take a long time and the invasion is still very recent. Of course, John McCain is right and there is no other way that Iraqis will get the peace and stability that they deserve. Unfortunately McCain's message isn't a popular one. Simply put, if more troops are not committed and if troop withdrawals follow the anti-war doomsayers will be proved correct. For the sake of the Iraqi people I hope they are proved wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Republicans will loose the next election and the Democrats will pull out.

    After a bloody civil war Iraq will get a nasty dictator and many of the Stop the War types will demand that the US and UK do something, right up until he invades Kuwait - at which point they'll say Saddam Mk 2 isn't all bad and its all about the oil anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Republicans will loose the next election and the Democrats will pull out.

    After a bloody civil war Iraq will get a nasty dictator and many of the Stop the War types will demand that the US and UK do something, right up until he invades Kuwait - at which point they'll say Saddam Mk 2 isn't all bad and its all about the oil anyway.

    I'd laugh if it wasn't so plausible.

    I'm still hopeful however that McCain will be successful in '08.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't really know how anybody can with a clear conscience hanker for an Iraq ruled by Saddam.
    Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

    We should not apologise for our part in the overthrow of one of the most vicious regimes remaining in the 21st century.
    No. We should apologise for lying to the UN and to the world, fabricating evidence, threatening, bullying and insulting most of our historical allies who opposed the use of force, waging an illegal war under false pretences and lies, and most of all for causing, whether directly or indirectly,the deaths of more than 650,000 innocent Iraqis and for causing the desintegration of thier nation and a descent to a hellhole a hundred million times worse than life under Saddam ever was.


    The new Iraq despite symbolising hopes for democracy and liberty will be forever marked by some violent initial years – making Iraq no different to many other countries around the world that are now functioning democracies.
    Nice spin. Were you cloned from Alistair Campbell and Comical Ali by any chance?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i see two possible futures for Iraq...

    1) A single "Iron man" leader emerges, with a backbone and like many a dictator of the past, takes as much as he can get from the USA and UK then turns his backs on them and of course ignores Human Rights. In essence a return to the "Saddam style era".

    2) Total and utter devastation, civil war, a partition of the country to fit the religious factions and then an almost Yugoslavian effect, with ethnic cleansing, fighting, outside interference and a complete absence of UN or Western involvment at that point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Republicans will loose the next election and the Democrats will pull out.

    After a bloody civil war Iraq will get a nasty dictator and many of the Stop the War types will demand that the US and UK do something, right up until he invades Kuwait - at which point they'll say Saddam Mk 2 isn't all bad and its all about the oil anyway.

    Do you think those calling themselves the CIA have someone lined up already ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Do you think those calling themselves the CIA have someone lined up already ?

    If they do, he's probably a dead man walking, given that the insurgents don't seem big fans of the US
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If they do, he's probably a dead man walking, given that the insurgents don't seem big fans of the US

    Maybe.

    They could choose someone with the most violent gang to do a deal with ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Maybe.

    They could choose someone with the most violent gang to do a deal with ?

    Never say never. Whilst its unlikely that they could reach a deal given that they fundamentally oppose each other, stranger things have happened: Iran supported Iraq in 1991, Germany and the USSR reached an agreement in 1939.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Iraq War: conflict, ongoing Predictions: See Vietnam War.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Never say never. Whilst its unlikely that they could reach a deal given that they fundamentally oppose each other, stranger things have happened: Iran supported Iraq in 1991, Germany and the USSR reached an agreement in 1939.

    According to some arab newspapers, that is what is happening behind the scenes.

    Possibly three "countries" as a result.

    Those "statesmen" are soooo creative :lol::lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's so naive for the US and UK to invade Iraq, try and organise some elections and think everything will be just fine.

    I love the way the soldier in that video is asking the Iraqi would he rather not have his freedom then have Saddam back and the chap is replying to basically indicated he and his family are at the point of starving, what use if freedom if you die of starvation.

    what use is elections when your house is in pieces, you have no jobs, no schools, there are daily gun battles and bombs going off and food and cooking gas is hard to find.

    Elections come about once every 4 years in most countries and the US and UK should have addressed the immediate problems like helping people stay alive then concentrating on elections, I wouldn't have even bothered with an election at this stage.

    You need one person to be totally in charge in Iraq, get things rebuilt and stable and then in 4 years time once people are settle asked them to vote for whoever they want to represent them. Starting off with elections is just asking for trouble as every section of the community does what they can to get themselves represented.

    If there was such a thing as true democracy it would probably be very unlikely that a father and son could both get to be president of the USA, the same way the Kennedy Brothers got to be in politics. The powers that be put forward whoever they think has the best chance of winning an election and the public vote from that very limited number of choices. Very rarely will the best person for the job actually get it.

    I believe most people look for a strong leader. It's the way many mammals work, there is a leader that guides the heard, they don't all take a vote.

    I don't think human nature is that much different from animals. From leading events and big groups of people I've found group voting never works, everything just ends up very messy and disorganised and the whole group is disappointed with the end result. All you need is a leader that is as fair to everyone as possible and will listen to all but in the end leads a clear path for people to follow.

    Someone like Ken Livingstone actually does this sort of thing, particularly in the area of transport and the congestion charge where he faced loads of opposition from all sides, but in the end he set the way forward. Whereas someone like Tony Blair or Bush just hides behind words and spin and never has any clear and defined goals and objectives on any subject.

    If the west keeps on pursuing the notion of democracy in Iraq before trying to fix the infrastructure and get people into a place where they can lead a normal everyday life without having to worry about housing, food, schools, violence, kidnappings, etc then I fear they'll be no better off for many years to come.

    If the US and UK pull out I reckon Iraq is pretty much doomed to violence and civil wars for many years to come. I think in the end things will settle down but could be 5, 10, 20 or 30 years away. And as little children grow up knowing nothing but war I think it will just get worse. I think it needs to be nipped in the bud so to speak whilst people still remember what life was like under Saddam (both the good and the bad).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Nice spin. Were you cloned from Alistair Campbell and Comical Ali by any chance?

    It's not spin. Throughout the world borders and countries have been shaped by years of war and many countries came into being through conflict. Do you think independence in South America was bloodless?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Clearly there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Or do you think anything is justifiable?

    Even if the violence stopped forever tomorrow, the price would have already been unacceptably high.

    Never mind the issue of Western-Arab relations being set back by another 50 years. Never mind the most volatile region in the world being given yet more conflict and instability. Never mind even old allies in the West being divided. Never mind ignoring the very rules, institutions, laws and rules we are so keen to export to 'barbarian' nations. Never mind the entire world having been made a far more dangerous place, contrary to the claims made by the warmongers. Never mind terrorism having been promoted in the region, rather than curtailed as the warmongers promised it would happen.

    As well as the unacceptable loss of life Iraq, the region and indeed the world are far worse off than they were with Saddam in power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not spin. Throughout the world borders and countries have been shaped by years of war and many countries came into being through conflict.

    Of course, we could tolerate people like Franco...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Clearly there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Or do you think anything is justifiable?

    I do not think 'anything' is justifiable. Although, if in ten or twenty years time Iraq is a functioning and vibrant liberal democracy then I will probably hold the Iraq War to have been a good thing.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Even if the violence stopped forever tomorrow, the price would have already been unacceptably high.

    According to you. The price would have been high but when does it become unacceptable? The price of the Union defeating the Confederacy in the American Civil War was catastrophic; the loss of life astronomical - was the price of a Union victory 'unacceptably high'?
    Aladdin wrote:
    As well as the unacceptable loss of life Iraq, the region and indeed the world are far worse off than they were with Saddam in power.

    In a broader historical context it will be easier to make such judgements. The Iraq War is still very recent.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Never mind the issue of Western-Arab relations being set back by another 50 years.

    Nonsense. Anyway the increase in oil prices means the Arab notables have even more spare cash to spend at Harrods. Relations were already sour with the likes of Syria and although not Arab, Iran. The ruling elites in the rest of the Arab world don't really care about much more than their own power.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Never mind even old allies in the West being divided.

    There has always been a divide between the Anglosphere and Europe. (Of course this is a tad simplistic since the Dutch and the Poles in particular have been traditionally atlantacist and Britain while obviously Anglospheric should in the view of the left side with Europe). Tbh the fact that Chirac, Schroder and Putin disagreed with President Bush and Tony Blair suggests we were doing something right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tbh the fact that Chirac, Schroder and Putin disagreed with President Bush and Tony Blair suggests we were doing something right.

    Doing something right? Yeh, right on dis. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not think 'anything' is justifiable. Although, if in ten or twenty years time Iraq is a functioning and vibrant liberal democracy then I will probably hold the Iraq War to have been a good thing.
    REally? Even if the current death toll continues?

    Do you realise that at the going rate in 20 years time the death toll would have climbed to between 3 and 4.5m deaths?


    According to you. The price would have been high but when does it become unacceptable? The price of the Union defeating the Confederacy in the American Civil War was catastrophic; the loss of life astronomical - was the price of a Union victory 'unacceptably high'?
    I don't think we can compare those times to these can we?

    You make it sound as if letting Saddam be would mean the end of mankind. Saddam was a monster and a butcher I'm the first one to admit, but the saying 'lesser of two evils' should perhaps be considered here.


    Nonsense. Anyway the increase in oil prices means the Arab notables have even more spare cash to spend at Harrods. Relations were already sour with the likes of Syria and although not Arab, Iran. The ruling elites in the rest of the Arab world don't really care about much more than their own power.
    I really hope your 'rich Arabs spending cash in Harrods' was tongue in cheek...

    As for the rest, yes relations have never been good with some countries. But they have deteriorated with most others, including some who were fairly friendly with the US. If not at government level certainly at citizen level.

    The man in the street is not stupid. What do you think they make of the US and Britain first appeasing and arming Saddam to the teeth so it can smash Iran, and then bombing Iraq into oblivion and occupying on the feeble excuse that Saddam was a bad man and he had WMDs? Specially as Israel has been given a free ride for decades to do pretty much as it pleases (and of course to build up a pretty formidable arsenal of WMDs)?

    People are pretty sick of it all.


    There has always been a divide between the Anglosphere and Europe. (Of course this is a tad simplistic since the Dutch and the Poles in particular have been traditionally atlantacist and Britain while obviously Anglospheric should in the view of the left side with Europe). Tbh the fact that Chirac, Schroder and Putin disagreed with President Bush and Tony Blair suggests we were doing something right.
    It's not just a question of just disagreeing is it? The build up to the war saw a set of disgusting tricks and games by the US government against all those who even dare to raise their concerns against the war. It was caught spying on allies at UN meetings. It bribed and bullied many nations. And it fired a barrell of hatred, vitriol and insults to France like it had never been seen before in modern history.

    I cannot thing of a single time in recent times when the world has stood more divided and when harder feelings have been held between nations.

    Do you really think removing Saddam was really worth that? Do you really think Saddam was so much worse than any number of despots and regimes elsewhere?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    REally? Even if the current death toll continues?

    Tbh I would rather everybody focus on helping bring about peace and stability in Iraq. I hope that the current death toll does not continue. Unfortunately I think the unwillingness of the US/UK and the international community to give Iraq the support it needs to defeat the forces of terror – i.e. send in more troops will have made the entire thing a failure.
    Aladdin wrote:
    I really hope your 'rich Arabs spending cash in Harrods' was tongue in cheek...

    As for the rest, yes relations have never been good with some countries. But they have deteriorated with most others, including some who were fairly friendly with the US. If not at government level certainly at citizen level.

    The man in the street is not stupid. What do you think they make of the US and Britain first appeasing and arming Saddam to the teeth so it can smash Iran, and then bombing Iraq into oblivion and occupying on the feeble excuse that Saddam was a bad man and he had WMDs? Specially as Israel has been given a free ride for decades to do pretty much as it pleases (and of course to build up a pretty formidable arsenal of WMDs)?

    You're right about distinguishing between government and citizens. The fact is that there is far greater concern in the West for the Iraqis and the Palestinians than amongst the ruling Arab elites.
    Aladdin wrote:
    It's not just a question of just disagreeing is it? The build up to the war saw a set of disgusting tricks and games by the US government against all those who even dare to raise their concerns against the war. It was caught spying on allies at UN meetings. It bribed and bullied many nations. And it fired a barrell of hatred, vitriol and insults to France like it had never been seen before in modern history.

    I cannot thing of a single time in recent times when the world has stood more divided and when harder feelings have been held between nations.

    Do you really think removing Saddam was really worth that? Do you really think Saddam was so much worse than any number of despots and regimes elsewhere?

    There was a temporary setback to US relations with some traditional allies and it's frustrating to see how widespread anti-Americanism is in some circles. However, while cliched it is true to say that there is far more that unites America and Europe than divides. Trans-Atlantic trade is vital to both and politically and culturally of course there are so many shared values and beliefs. Relations have soured before, Suez seems the obvious example but the harsh reality of the Cold War renewed co-operation and friendship. And now the threat coming from Islamists and Iran is one faced by the US and Europe.
Sign In or Register to comment.