Printable View
It's not that simple. There are many different groups fighting each others and the coalition, not just remainder of Saddam supporters. There are various Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
It won't solve all the problems, it will stop any further loss of life between the coalition troops though. Put yourself in their place, how would you feel being attacked by those very people you came in to 'rescue'.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
The biggest problem top be solved cannot be solved until coalition troops pull out because they are the biggest problem to too many Iraqi's. I'm not saying that if we pulled our troops out by the end of this month that everything would suddenly return to normal in Iraq, far from it in fact, but keeping coalition troops there only adds to the problems Iraq faces in the future.
So far we've been there four years, how much longer should it take? At what point do we say 'OK, everything's alright now, lets bring our troops home'? How many more troops and civilians have to die?
I would suggest when George W. Bush feels Iraq is safe enough to go on his annual vacation there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Exactly, so who would be the guys trying to keep the order if all the coalitian troops pulled out at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
They would simply all fight each other, and the iraqi's soldiers (how many are there now? maybe 1/5 of the way there?) trained by the americans/british etc, would be trying to do the job which over a quarter of a million american soldiers couldn't do.
How exactly would that help? Apart from obviously cut the lives lost of Americans and coalitians. But it was them who caused this mess. Surely they should take responsibility.
But it was the coalitian troops (not them individually, but their 'leader') who caused the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
I wouldn't ever put myself in that situation because of what is happening. I wouldn't want to be trying to 'rescue' people who were trying to kill me at the same time, and didn't want me there.
As I stated earlier, John Boulton has stated that when the infrastructure is in place for the Iraqi's to govern and police themselves, the withdrawal of troops shall start leaving.
And I know you say that it's the coalitian troops causing a lot of the fighting, because they are trying to get them out of Iraq, but then answer my question I've put to Eki. In the end it's a lose lose situation isn't it? So you got to pick the way which is best long term, which is making sure Iraq can cope with these criminal, gangs, terrorists etc without the coalitian, and then leaving. Rather than leaving tomorrow and letting the terrorists etc take control of Iraq, or have 4 different groups fighting each other for control - basically a civil war
The fighting between the various Iraqi factions won't suddenly stop when the coalition forces leave, the only thing that will stop is the loss of life within the coalition forces.
We could stay there another 20 years, train millions of Iraqi's to be police and army, but it won't stop the civil war from happening. The various factions are making it fairly clear now, with almost daily car bombs and attacks on their own countrymen, that there is serious conflict between there individual beliefs and wants.
All we are doing is wasting money and lives in a country that is making it very clear that it doesn't want us there. Yes we made the mess, and shouldn't have done so in the first place, but we've done all we should do, it's now time to leave.
That's fair enough. I see where your coming from completely.
I guess it's a difference of opinion, neither of us know which is the best way.
I'm not saying that training up millions of Iraqi's will mean there won't be any fighting. However I do think, considering it was us who caused the mess they are in, it is our responsibility to make sure they have some sort of infrastructure in place to try and cope with the continued violence, so they can have some hope of sorting it out, rather than leaving them with absolutely no hope of dealing with the problems ahead once the coalitian troops leave Iraq.
I don't think your way of pulling them out ASAP is taking responsibility for your (not you personally of course) actions. Even if it is the easy option, and most popular one, doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
Each to their own :)
There was an opinion poll among the Iraqis on what kind of democracy they want. The Saudi-Arabian kind of democracy was the most popular, the Iranian kind of democracy was second and the Western kind democracy was third.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Any thoughts on who would keep the order if the coalitian troops pulled out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Who would try and control the Saddam supporters, Sunni militias, Shiia militias, al-Qaeda groups, criminal gangs, tribal groups lead by various war-lords, etc...??
:) :)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html
Red Cross: Iraq situation 'ever-worsening'
POSTED: 5:55 a.m. EDT, April 11, 2007
GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The situation for civilians in Iraq is "ever-worsening," even though security in some places has improved as a result of stepped-up efforts by U.S.-led multinational forces, the international Red Cross said Wednesday.
It is difficult to determine the numbers of people killed in shootings, bombings and military operations, but the overall picture of what is happening the country has been steadily deteriorating, with numbers of refugees swelling, medical staff fleeing and other problems growing, a key official said.
"It is clear that the security situation has improved in certain instances," especially in southern Iraq, said Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC.
But the central region, including Baghdad, remains greatly affected, despite American efforts to secure the capital.
"Whatever operation that is today under way, and that may be taken tomorrow and in the weeks after, to improve the security of civilians on the ground may have an effect in the medium term," Kraehenbuehl told reporters. "We're certainly not seeing an immediate effect in terms of stabilization for civilians currently. That is not our reading."
He said it was so dangerous for Red Cross workers to move around in Baghdad, however, that "we don't have on a day-to-day basis a full picture of absolutely every situation."
Kraehenbuehl spoke in releasing a new ICRC report titled "Civilians Without Protection: The ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Iraq."
"The conflict in Iraq is inflicting immense suffering on the entire population," said the report. "Every day dozens of people are killed and any more wounded."