Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Is this good news?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6968720.stm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No, because in 6 months he will unleash hell. It's time we realised that our continued presence in Iraq is only exacerbating the security situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    No, because in 6 months he will unleash hell. It's time we realised that our continued presence in Iraq is only exacerbating the security situation.
    :dito: But just cutting our losses and running isn't a real option
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Not really; sounds like the reason that he's regrouping is because he's lost control, which means his declaration will mean very little.

    I hope the ***** kill each other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's possible that he is giving an excuse while he waits to see what will happen on the political front. Just a few days ago we had this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6964933.stm . If the violence does decrease over the next 6 months then that would certainly provide an opportunity for the politics to advance. I think the timing of his announcement so close to this deal is significant.

    (Original post by Dionysus)
    No, because in 6 months he will unleash hell. It's time we realised that our continued presence in Iraq is only exacerbating the security situation.
    I've heard this so often but have never ever heard a decent explanation for how it is so. Could you provide one?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shaf90)
    :dito: But just cutting our losses and running isn't a real option
    Why not? I mean I don't suggest we leave overnight, it would take a few months, but the situation is never going to improve whilst Iraq remains an occupied country. Indeed, it will likely descend into complete chaos when we leave, but once the invasion took place, that was always going to be the consequence of withdrawal. If we stayed another 10 years at great expense in terms of both lives and money, it would still collapse when we withdraw. Democracy cannot be imposed. It has to develop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Why not? I mean I don't suggest we leave overnight, it would take a few months, but the situation is never going to improve whilst Iraq remains an occupied country. Indeed, it will likely descend into complete chaos when we leave, but once the invasion took place, that was always going to be the consequence of withdrawal. If we stayed another 10 years at great expense in terms of both lives and money, it would still collapse when we withdraw. Democracy cannot be imposed. It has to develop.
    Because then we will be accused of genocide
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shaf90)
    Because then we will be accused of genocide
    That accusation could only be made by someone entirely ignorant of international law, the Genocide Convention and basically the entire situation. So, yeah, leftists and Islamists will no doubt make such accusations.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That accusation could only be made by someone entirely ignorant of international law, the Genocide Convention and basically the entire situation. So, yeah, leftists and Islamists will no doubt make such accusations.
    I only see one person who is apparently ignorant around here. The left have fervently supported withdrawal for several years.

    And no, of course it wouldn't be genocide. How can someone be guilty of genocide because of their absence? The current number of civilian casualties, on the other hand, whilst not genocide, is well beyond acceptable levels
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    I only see one person who is apparently ignorant around here. The left have fervently supported withdrawal for several years.
    Have they? I say you make the bed, you go lie in it. The 'Coalition of the Willing' (haha) have to see this through, regardless now of cost or time, because I think it is possible for stability to be brought about with, and only with, the presence of US and UK troops. Withdrawal and the rush to fill the resulting power vacuum would destroy everything that HAS been done so far.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Why not? I mean I don't suggest we leave overnight, it would take a few months, but the situation is never going to improve whilst Iraq remains an occupied country. Indeed, it will likely descend into complete chaos when we leave, but once the invasion took place, that was always going to be the consequence of withdrawal. If we stayed another 10 years at great expense in terms of both lives and money, it would still collapse when we withdraw. Democracy cannot be imposed. It has to develop.
    Oh come off it.

    Pulling out military presence that quickly is the last thing that the US will do - even the Democratic candidates realise that. The country will descend into open civil war (currently restrained to a degree), with the weak government quickly shattering. The police force and Iraqi military, currently undermanned and poorly trained, are completely incapable of holding things together at this stage. Islamist militia, supposedly backed by Iran, will take control, putting Iraq in a far worse position than it was before the invasion (Both for the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world). It will completely undermine any progress that has been made in the last few years of occupation.

    And if you're stupid and selfish enough to just let the Iraqi's kill each other, as long as they don't kill the precious Americans, then you're both ignorant and wrong - leaving Iraq in a volatile and aggressive state will provide a wonderful breeding ground for terrorists, which could threaten Western (And pro-western Muslim) civilians. A dirty bomb detonated in down-town New York, fueled by Iranian nuclear waste, and organised by terrorists bred in Iraq. Because that'll make pulling out to save a few American lives, or win a few votes, look very clever.

    The US will likely take the advice of the report due in September, (Conducted by General What'shisface - I hate names) which, it has been hinted, advocates a presence well into the next decade.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gurk)
    A dirty bomb detonated in down-town New York, fueled by Iranian nuclear waste, and organised by terrorists bred in Iraq.
    Yes very likely :rolleyes: And I've just seen a squadron of flying pigs.


    The US will likely take the advice of the report due in September, (Conducted by General What'shisface - I hate names) which, it has been hinted, advocates a presence well into the next decade.
    Clinton has already made it clear that she will withdraw from Iraq rapidly. In fact, at least three bills demanding withdrawal by mid-2008 have already been passed. It's just that Bush keeps vetoing them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    I only see one person who is apparently ignorant around here.
    Let me guess who you think is ignorant, the one who has actually studied International Law and International HR Law as opposed to inventing it when they feel like?

    (Original post by Dionysus)
    And no, of course it wouldn't be genocide. How can someone be guilty of genocide because of their absence? The current number of civilian casualties, on the other hand, whilst not genocide, is well beyond acceptable levels
    1. Well, technically the Genocide Convention does include complicity, which could be via inaction, but it's completely inapplicable on these facts in this situation.
    2. The civilian casualties since the initial invasion and large-scale battles (such as that in Fallujah) are caused in the vast majority by terrorists, not by the coalition forces, who are there primarily to protect Iraqis from said terrorists. And disparate terror groups can't really commit genocide and they're not really attempting to annihilate certain ethnic groups, no matter how many they attempt to and do kill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    2. The civilian casualties since the initial invasion and large-scale battles (such as that in Fallujah) are caused in the vast majority by terrorists, not by the coalition forces, who are there primarily to protect Iraqis from said terrorists. And disparate terror groups can't really commit genocide and they're not really attempting to annihilate certain ethnic groups, no matter how many they attempt to and do kill.

    How convenient JohnathanH… The US is there to protect Iraqi civilians!!
    Has it ever occurred to you why groups like Mehdi Army are so popular amongst Iraqis? Because they treat Americans as occupiers! And Mehdi Army as their saviors.
    They protect their lives and property.
    Soon after the attack on Askariya shrine…Mehdi Army went door to door to Sunnis and offered them protection;
    There are two types of groups operating in Iraq, one attacking civilians (Saudi funded –US backed) and the other attacking coalition forces (true freedom fighters)

    Divide and Rule is an old policy of any imperialists…
    What would be the moral or logical justification for U.S to stay in Iraq once there is peace in Iraq. Oil was the only reason to invade Iraq in the first place.

    And bye the way Falluja represents the model of American forces brutality…
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That accusation could only be made by someone entirely ignorant of international law, the Genocide Convention and basically the entire situation. So, yeah, leftists and Islamists will no doubt make such accusations.
    Bush and Blair were great adherents to international law weren't they? :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.