Printable View
I couldn't agree more :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
George W has stated that American troops won't leave Iraq until it is established as a demorcratic country. Is that what the Iraqi people want? Has anybody actually asked them what they want, either before the war or now?
Perhaps a referendum is in order? It would also give the US/UK forces a decent excuse to get out.
Isn't that common sense though? It's like do you have to ask a child whether they want to eat or starve? Though maybe you would rather starve if you had to go through significant pain to have something to eat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
I think the way the iraqi celebrated when Saddam was toppled suggests they were happy Saddam was beaten. What the Iraqi's don't like is all the violence and fighting, which is dragging on.
I don't think Iraqi's oppose having democracy. Though it's debateble whether they would have wanted Saddam beaten to get to a democracy, if they knew they would have to go through all this fighting. But I don't think it's in question that they want to be a democractic country, but at this cost? That's a question I don't have the answer too. Have you heard otherwise? :)
I'll grant you the fact that the majority of Iraqi people celebrated when Saddam fell, but as I've explained before, he could have been 'taken out' by the SAS in 1991 and I have no doubt that the same could have been achieved this time around with the billions of dollars, thousands of troops and 10's of thousands of civilian and military casualties.
America, and the UK, seem to be hell-bent on making Iraq into a western country, with western ideals and a western style government buty has anyone actaully asked them if that is what they want? Maybe they do? Maybe the one thing they all dream of is to be just like those in the west? Then again maybe it's the last thing in the world they want?
As for pulling out when thwe job is only half done? How can we be sure to what degree the task is complete? Does anyone actually know what the task is in the first place? Is it to make Iraq a peaceful and democratic country? If it is then our troops will never leave, and all the time they are there there will be no peace.
If I remember correctly the original reason for the illegal attack on Iraq by coallition troops was to remove the threat os WMD's. Well we didn't find any so we decided to remove the bloke in charge, to stop him pressing the button, just in case he'd hidden them all under his bed. We've done that, and got rid of most of his family and sypathisers too, so I say job done. Now get our troops out of their country and let them do the rebuilding that they need to do.
I think this is a crucial point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was obvious for all to see, but a lot of people seemed to realise rather late in the day — more precisely, when they realised that getting rid of him would suit their current agenda. As someone who cares passionately about human rights, but also doesn't believe in unnecessary military intervention, I find the human rights justification for the conflict pretty sickening. Why weren't George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al pressing for Hussein to be removed from power when his regime was actually committing the human rights abuses that are always cited nowadays?
The conflict in 1991 was, in my view, justified because of the invasion of Kuwait. If Saddam Hussein had been killed or removed from power in the course of that war, I for one would have found it acceptable (I was young at the time, but can say that with the benefit of hindsight). It would also have prevented the human rights abuses on the part of his regime that followed. There is no doubt that more than one definite opportunity existed to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the 1991 campaign. The question must be asked as to why. Maybe the coalition at the time feared that it would lead to the sort of instability that we see in Iraq today, but the aftermath of the 1991 conflict was, in its own way, just as damaging and chaotic as a result of leaving him in power. Getting rid of him in 2003 cannot be justified merely on the basis that we should have done so in 1991 but failed to do so.
People always go on about American and Britain. Can we not forget the coalitian troops is made up of 60 different nations or something ridiculous! I think Iraqi's want to live in a democratic country, without a civil war going on. I think it's common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
John Boulton has said just recently that once there is the infrastructure in place for Iraqi soldiers/police to be able to police themselves, and govern themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start. That is when the task is done I'm guessing :)
It was only in this country where WoMD were talked about as the main cause for going to war. In America this wasn't a big deal. Bringing an end to Saddam, and ending the threat of a potential dictatorship who would happily use nuclear weapons to kill people in his nation was given the reasons for going to war over there.
As I've said, your attitude of - we've got rid of Saddam, so lets get out, is irresponsible. We've created chaos in Iraq, so now it's our responsible to sort it out. It's called taking responsibility for your actions I believe.
Blair and Bush have messed up by going to war in the first place, but they should now try and sort out the mess they've created
:)
That hardly matters when one considers how the push for war was led by the US and UK. They, the US in particular, are by far the 'dominant partners' in the whole venture.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
But how many nations contribute a significant number? I'm sure many of them are just have a dozen 'advisors' or diplomats. AFAIK only the USA and UK have troops on the ground in any numbers.
But there comes a point where the very presence of foreign troops is exactly what's creating the 'mess' in the first place. What if the only way to sort it out is to get out?Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
If thats the only way for the violence to stop - then I guess that's what needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
However I don't think the idea of leaving a country with no proper infrastructure is the way forward. I think the coalitian have a job to do in making sure the country is ready to cope with the potential violence, when it loses around (250,000?) troops who are currently trying to keep the peace and fight out the remainder of Saddams 'troops'. As more and more iraqi's are trained to police the country, they should slowly start taking over the coalitian soldiers duties.
Can you imagine the gap being left if all coalitian troops left. I really don't see how that would solve all the problems.
Regarding the fact the US and UK lead the war, my point that another 60 (is it 62?) nations backed the war, suggests a large number of prime ministers/presidents agreed with it, even if the general public tend to be against it (though they were for it before the war started).