Three years on....

[B_HappyHammer1977]

It's now THREE years to the day that the boys first landed in Eye-Rack....

Who thinks they should stay and who thinks they should get out?

 

[RideRocket]

Stay and finish the job despite the overwhelming lack of support from the media.

 

[Chuck64]

Anyone with even 1/2 a brain cell can see some serious consequences either way. If any other country woud clean up our mess after we left, I'd say pull out. I don't think that's going to be the case. The handful of countries who are helping will certainly pull out while we're still packing up all our shit.

Personally, I wish Bush hadn't fucked up in the first place. I did my part to prevent it. I've voted against him more times than most people. Don't forget- He was fucking over Texas for a couple of years before he ran for President.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

Speaking for myself alone...

I think alot of people who disagree with George's little crusade have said it so many times, with no reward that they're fed up of doing it over and over...

Those who support the "action" may not want to speak up for fear of the backlash.

2000 Americans, 100 British, 38,000 Iraqi soldiers and 50,000 Iraqi civilians (according to todays TV news) later... does it really take discussion to form opinions on this anymore?

All sympathies go out to the families of the soldiers and others who've lost loved ones and/or had their lives wrecked and wasted by George and Tony's little exercise in personal glory.

 

[Dr Rock]

Stay and finish the job

what job? dying for oil money? how do we "finish" the government's exploitation of armed force for personal gain - just wait until we run out of troops?

 

[Chuck64]

That's where the Johnny 5 contraptions come in...

 

[EnglishGentleman]

what job? dying for oil money? how do we "finish" the government's exploitation of armed force for personal gain - just wait until we run out of troops?

Then they start conscripting....

GOOOOOOD MOOOOOOOOORNIIIING IIIIIIIIIIRAQ!

 

[RideRocket]

In the big picture sense, Bush had it right when he said that we are in a global war against terrorism. What many people fail to realize is that the Islamic Fundamentalists want nothing more than to destroy our civilization and way of life. There is no compromise, no middle-ground, no reasoning with them.

Although the extremists represent only a small portion of Islam, they have a huge influence because of the oil money. Generally, they come in two forms - Salafists and Wahabists. The latter being the form of Islam Saudi Arabia practices. They wish to establish and subjugate everyone to Sharia in every country. So how do you overcome their agenda? Their form of hatred is fueled by taking advantage of the poor and uneducated. Establishing democracies, or at least governments that are open to free thought and ideas is a means to overcome extremism. It gives them no ability to take root. Iraq is just a start in that region.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

What many people fail to realize is that the Islamic Fundamentalists want nothing more than to destroy our civilization and way of life. There is no compromise, no middle-ground, no reasoning with them.

So it's up to the equally despicable Christian fundamentalists, who also want to destroy their, AND my way of life to do it? America and the UK are supposedly democracies, but we're still out there massacring innocents, even our own people.

It's not Islam, it's not Christianity, it's allowing religion to have ANY influence whatsoever in politics that causes problems like this. We're all better educated now and don't need clerics of any faith interfering in the affairs of nations.

They kill people.

Killing people is wrong.

 

[Chuck64]

Ride... According to the information I've read (sorry, I don't have a link handy), Sadam's dictatorship had the fundamentalists under control, at least in the populated areas inside Iraq. Everyone was too busy hating him to start a civil war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, terrorist training camps, or high level terrorists operating inside Iraq before we destabilized the country.

If we were really concerned about Al Qaeda, state-sponsored terror and weapons of mass destruction, we would have gone after Indonesia, the palestinians (Hamas), Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea. Personally, I thank God we didn't because our allies would have been blown to hell (Isreal - which I admit isn't playing very fair either, parts of Europe, and Japan)

 

[RideRocket]

As classified reports continue to get declassified and/or interpreted into English, more and more information is becoming available.

Just recently, reports were released that even Saddam's top aides did not know that he had gotten rid of his WMD. They, just like us, the Egyptians, the Russians, the French, etc. believed he had them. They were dismayed because they were under the impression that they would be able to use them against the US in the event of an attack.

There is a definite link between al Quaeda and Iraq. Some examples:
1) The existence of a terrorist training camp in the northern area (Ansar-al Islam - I believe).
2) His medical support for Al-Zaqari and allowing him free travel throughtout Iraq.
3) He named Osama bin Laden as a person of interest with regards to attacking the west.

Although Saddam had a grip on his fundamentalists, he still wanted to use them to wage his own agenda against Israel and the United States. While Saddam did not agree with their extreme version of Islam (part of why he attacked Iran - but that's another thread along with why we supported him), he definitely saw a reason for 'supporting' them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As more documents get released, I think the link between al Quaeda and Iraq will strengthen. I also think we'll get a clearer picture as to what happened to all the WMD <ahem - Syria>.

Have we made some mistakes along the way? Yes, but hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[ClaireTalon]

Pulling out now is no option, it'd de-stabilize Iraq itself. Really, who does believe Iraq's new army is able to cope with their task of counter-terrorism fights, showing presence to avoid a civil war, and take care of the national defense? As it is now, American and other foreign forces are the only capable military personnel in the area, and their retreat would rack up even more chaos than we are facing currently. We have stirred up the shit now, and can't take a powder now before we have cleaned up the mess.

The best choice would be a gradual transition from military action to a use of law enforcement forces. Problems, such as terrorism, and a lack of public security, can't be fully managed by open combat action, they require the use of investigation and intelligence means to take out terrorism cells and to install a safe system of public safety. The issues of foreign military personnel should be training the new Iraqi army, as well as tactical/logistics support to them.

 

[steve2727]

As classified reports continue to get declassified and/or interpreted into English, more and more information is becoming available.

Just recently, reports were released that even Saddam's top aides did not know that he had gotten rid of his WMD. They, just like us, the Egyptians, the Russians, the French, etc. believed he had them. They were dismayed because they were under the impression that they would be able to use them against the US in the event of an attack.

There is a definite link between al Quaeda and Iraq. Some examples:
1) The existence of a terrorist training camp in the northern area (Ansar-al Islam - I believe).
2) His medical support for Al-Zaqari and allowing him free travel throughtout Iraq.
3) He named Osama bin Laden as a person of interest with regards to attacking the west.

Although Saddam had a grip on his fundamentalists, he still wanted to use them to wage his own agenda against Israel and the United States. While Saddam did not agree with their extreme version of Islam (part of why he attacked Iran - but that's another thread along with why we supported him), he definitely saw a reason for 'supporting' them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As more documents get released, I think the link between al Quaeda and Iraq will strengthen. I also think we'll get a clearer picture as to what happened to all the WMD <ahem - Syria>.

Have we made some mistakes along the way? Yes, but hindsight is always 20/20.

The only definite link between Iraq and Al Quaeda is the one we created with this disasterous war. I'm sure if you look hard enough I'm sure you can find links, but if you look hard enogh you could find some flimsy links between just about any national government and Al Quaeda.

I didn't support the war from the start, not because i thought having a strong stable democratic Iraq that was friendly to the west was not a worthwhile goal, I just had zero confidence in the ability in Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and co to achieve it. Nation building in that region would be a tough task for competent people, let alone those clowns. I thought they'd either cause a civil war or let some fundamentalist nutters take control of the country.

Not to mention the diplomatic debacle before the start of the war and the damage it did to international cooperation and law - I find it funny how many Americans are still anti-french over the whole Iraq thing. Well, suppose nobody likes to hear 'I told you so'.

I'm inclined to say a staged pullout over the next year or so would be best all round, if I was at all confident they could 'finish the job' (i.e. create a secure stable democratic Iraq) then I'd say stay, but from what I can see it won't matter how long they stay in that quagmire, it won't happen, it's just wasting more lives (and money)

 

[EnglishGentleman]

Really, who does believe Iraq's new army is able to cope with their task of counter-terrorism fights

I think Claire's made the point extremely well with this comment, though maybe not the point she intended. Iraq's armed forces are, and were a shambolic, ineffective mess. They were no real threat to the west in the first place.

Other than that I agree with most of what she says. Policing and intelligence are of more use than troops in quelling civil unrest. The Iraqis believe themselves to be in a state of civil war, brought about by our interference. Bush would rather believe otherwise....

Help them establish a government that suits THEM, not us. We like democracy, for all that word is worth anymore, but what do they want themselves in Iraq? What does the average Iraqi Joe or Joanna want for their country? Is anyone stopping to ask?

One thing is clear... with bomb attacks on Western military bases, and petrol bombs being thrown at British & American patrols, it sure as hell isn't us. Get the troops out and some serious social and intellectual muscle to sort out what the knuckleheads in Downing Street and the White House started.

 

[Dr Rock]

Establishing democracies, or at least governments that are open to free thought and ideas is a means to overcome extremism.

sure. and what a great job we've done on that front so far.

 

[RideRocket]

sure. and what a great job we've done on that front so far.

It's better than what the rest of the world wants to do - stick their head in the dirt and act like there's no threat. Then when it's too late, everyone will stand around wondering, "how did this happen?" And lest anyone think otherwise, it's already happening!

 

[D_Count_Dickula]

Quote:

Establishing democracies, or at least governments that are open to free thought and ideas is a means to overcome extremism.



Since when can America be called a democracy with a president that fucks up the country as he and his Dad's buddies please?

That opens a nothing less than a concentration camp (I am a German, I know what that is) in Guantanamo, locking randomly chosen people up...

That publicly lies to cover up the real reasons for invading a (undemocratic, but still sovereign) country?

And most of all: Bush started a war in a region, of which he has no cultural, economic or religious idea whatsoever. Saddam had to go, but not in this cowboyish way! In the end all this destablizes the south eastern rim of the European Union, thank you very much. Before the invasion, we knew how to handle it, but now it's violent chaos with a dumbstruck army in the middle.

 

[RideRocket]

That opens a nothing less than a concentration camp (I am a German, I know what that is) in Guantanamo, locking randomly chosen people up...

That publicly lies to cover up the real reasons for invading a (undemocratic, but still sovereign) country?

And most of all: Bush started a war in a region, of which he has no cultural, economic or religious idea whatsoever. Saddam had to go, but not in this cowboyish way! In the end all this destablizes the south eastern rim of the European Union, thank you very much. Before the invasion, we knew how to handle it, but now it's violent chaos with a dumbstruck army in the middle.

The people in GITMO are considered prisoners of war and should be subject to military tribunals, not civil criminal laws. Therefore, they can be held pretty much indefinitely.

Please clarify when you said, "before the invasion, we knew how to handle it..." The last time anyone checked, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN resolutions for over 10 years without any consequences. How long is diplomacy expected to work before other actions are required?

Furthermore, why is it that the three biggest opponents to forcefully removing Saddam were France, Germany and Russia? The most glaring reason is their monetary involvement in construction and military projects, not too mention the entire oil-for-food scandal.

 

[steve2727]

The people in GITMO are considered prisoners of war and should be subject to military tribunals, not civil criminal laws. Therefore, they can be held pretty much indefinitely.

Not true, the prisoners in Guantanamo are specifically not considered prisoners of war by the US authorities. They have been classified as 'enemy combatants' by the US administration, a very dubious legal manouver to put them in a situation where they are afforded neither the rights and protections of US civil law OR those afforded prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention, basically they have no rights at all. I think anyone would have a very tough time justifying this from a moral standpoint, or even a legal one.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

Whatever type of "prisoner" they are, the treatment they have recieved is criminal by ANYONE's standards, moral or religious, and to defend them is short-sighted to say the very least.