Printable View
I don't think anyone argues the fact the situation over there is dire Eki, and thank you for the article, very interesting :) I was just wondering, to those people who think we should pull out ASAP, who would be attempting to keep order there? And 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?
The coalitian forces shouldnt have been in Iraq in the first place. Bush and Blair lied about their reasons for going to war with Iraq who had never killed an American citizen before and the Iraqi people are paying the price for Bush's oil and construction greed.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
The coalition forces need to stay in Iraq and fix the mess they started.
Couldn't agree more!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
And though I do completely understand the understanding behind the opposite view, which is to pull out ASAP, but no one seems to be able to say who would keep the order there without the infrastructure in place. The only people seem able to say is that 'oh well...when the coalitian pull out, the fighting will naturally stop as people are only fighting because the americans are there'.
I'm not sure how true that would turn out to be I must admit!
Correct, but Bush and Blair instigated the WOMD cr@p and lied to the international community. That is why people go on about the USA and GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
Unfortunately, I think the fighting will go on in Iraq for many more years, whether the coalition forces stay or if they go or even if a true democracy is created with an elected president. Sadly, no nation can be rebuilt with the problems experienced in Iraq at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
I don't recall anybody saying that the fighting will stop, in fact I think you'll find that people have said just the opposite to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by raphael123
The fall of Bagdad and Saddams regiume was more than four years ago, even if you said that for the next two years we did nothing else but sweap the floor and clean the windows, we have still been training Iraqi army and police for two years. If you joined the British army you'd receive a six week basic training, at which point you could be called to active service, followed by a six month additional training for whichever corps you joined, such as Paratrooper, Infantry, Artillery etc. Obviously regiments such as REME require longer training times but the basic principle is that from join-up date to basic soldier takes just six weeks.
So in two years, how many soldiers should we have trained by now? How long do we have to hold their hands before we let them take control of the problems we face? If they're not ready now, will they ever be?
Good point CarlMetro. We have been there 4yrs now. I'm going on the assumption that the Americans and the coalitian troops will now when the infrastructure is best ready to cope with the withdrawal of all coalitian troops, rather than us guys who post on here :)
Obviously they have said that they are not at this stage yet. When there is evidence to suggest that the iraqi's are ready to take over the role that the coalitian troops currently do, then I guess that will be when they are ready.
Leaving them with a mess to sort out and no infrastructure in place though - that is definately not the answer.
To sum it up, I don't think me or you are in a position to know when they will be ready compared to the people out there in Iraq. They obviously don't think that is now - so we must continue to take responsibility for our actions :)
Also CarlMetro, just out of curiousity, as you are one of the people who think we should get out now - who do you suggest takes over from trying to keep order in Iraq? And stop the fighting between the different groups currently in Iraq? Or do you think no one is needed to try and keep some kind of order? Or is it your opinion that we should pull out and let them get on with it themselves? And if so, what do you say to those who say we should take responsibility for our actions? :)
Where are they now?
Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war is in the World Bank. And they said the UN is corrupt:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266052,00.html
Documents May Give Wolfowitz New Lifeline in World Bank Scandal
Saturday, April 14, 2007
By Richard Behar
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz’s career was hanging by a thread today, but new revelations in internal bank documents released by the bank seemed as if they would provide him a stronger lifeline.
Since Thursday, the 24-member board of directors of the bank – the world’s largest and most influential anti-poverty institution — has been locked in meetings that might decide whether to censure or sanction Wolfowitz — or even demand his resignation.
The issue: whether Wolfowitz broke or bent bank rules in 2005 to enable a large salary hike for his girlfriend, a longtime bank staffer named Shaha Riza, at the same time that he helped to arrange her transfer to the U.S. State Department to avoid a conflict of interest. Her net wages jumped from $132,660 to $193,590 by 2006, which made her – by far — the highest paid person at the State Dept.
Yeah, but who would have believed those surrender monkeys:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266291,00.html
Report: France Told U.S. of Al Qaeda Hijack Plot Before 9/11
Monday, April 16, 2007
PARIS — France's foreign intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that Al Qaeda was preparing a hijacking plot likely to involve a U.S. airplane, former intelligence officials said Monday, confirming a report that also said the CIA received the warning.
Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Usama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French spy service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001. The documents included a Jan. 5, 2001, intelligence report warning that Al Qaeda was at work on a hijacking plot.
Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi, the former chief of staff for the agency's director at the time, said he remembered the note and that it mentioned only the vague outlines of a hijacking plot — nothing that foreshadowed the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies."'
Eki, I'm not sure I understand the exact purpose of you posting that article. It's quite well known that there were some intelligence which suggested al-quaeda were planning something. However nothing like this had ever been seen, nothing even comparable. I'm sure if there was a wiff of intelligence on something like this now, the US and any other country under threat would take that information much more seriously. The plots the UK have unravelled in the past few years show that any intelligence they have on such plots are taken seriously.
Even if the U.S had information that the Al-Quaeda were planning 'something', but didn't have a clue when, where, what it would be. Just the fact they were planning 'something' doesn't really give them much to go on. The U.S weren't to blame for the attacks - the terrorists were. Let's not forget it.
All the attack did was make Bush and Blair take the issues of extremism and terrorists more seriously, hence the following wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, a war to combat terrorists and extremists.