Should USUK forces leave IRaq now?

[Sorry.]

The coalition isn't there to create law and order on it's own, it's to provide some security while the iraqi government creates it. Pulling out troops now would be a sign to groups like Al Sadir to go back to violence, rather than political means. It is working, just very slowly.

I don't see the evidence that it's working, particularly in light of the undercover soldiers/infiltrated Basra police debacle. As far as I can gather

- mindless violent attacks are increasing in frequency and effect
- small scale insurgencies and autonomous zones are happening more often
- the population's hostility to coalition and government is increasing.

Why should things be getting better, and why will they get better? Purely because they're training more Iraqi troops/police? People that the general population seem to regard as collaborators?

As for men like Al-Sadr, I think the reverse is true - access to legitimate power is what keeps him from returning his militia to violence. It will be the occupation and this farce of a constitution that will force him back into the field. Not some 'sign of weakness'.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

hope you don`t mind me saying but i think you very wrong on all of the points you have listed.........

I don't mind, if i did i shouldn't be posting here , but do you really think that the result of UK/US forces withdrawing would be anything other than civil war?

 

[nino_savatte]

Most people don't think enough about problems, if you were to ask them if they would prefer the UK/US forces to withdraw and have full civil war then i think most would prefer the troops.

Some symbolic hurling of abuse at UK/US forces would do the governement the world of good.

Redsquirrel: Sorry it's late, but you have a source for the water/power figures, don't need a link just curious when they were taken.

Have you any figures to support this assertion?

 

[redsquirrel]

Red Herring: not really, the UK have dedicated civil engineering units that are experts on this sort of work. They would be there if anyone would be so some military units would still be around to provide security for them.

How does that affect funding? And if the US/UK had spent half as much time on ebuilding electricity/water/sanitation infrastructure as they did on rebuilding the oil fields the situation probably wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

So if there is no government worth mentioning what do you want to happen?

I've already said, the withdrawal of US/UK troops.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

nino we have history, i haven't mentioned hypocricy or tried to be condescending. If i appear to have been i appologise, it was not intentional, can you please not put words into my mouth that we both know are rubbish.

 

[cemertyone]

So the current sitution is the solution you mention....god help us and the Iraq`s..
So far 4 £billion spent of our tax paying money...£2 billion plus robbed from the iraq exchequer...£28 billion spent by the usa....iol prices at an all time high..infrastructue of Iraq in tatters...medical services up for sale to the higest bidder..95 brit soldiers dead....and on and on and on......

 

[redsquirrel]

Most people don't think enough about problems, if you were to ask them if they would prefer the UK/US forces to withdraw and have full civil war then i think most would prefer the troops.

What so if you give them an idiotic false dictomy(sp) then they would choose to have the troops remain. So fucking what?

Redsquirrel: Sorry it's late, but you have a source for the water/power figures, don't need a link just curious when they were taken.

It was on the Today program today (or maybe yesterday).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How does that affect funding? And if the US/UK had spent half as much time on ebuilding electricity/water/sanitation infrastructure as they did on rebuilding the oil fields the situation probably wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

I've already said, the withdrawal of US/UK troops.

The oil fields weren't damaged were they? Could have sworn they were almost undamaged. So troops withdraw, then what happens?

 

[Sorry.]

Most people don't think enough about problems, if you were to ask them if they would prefer the UK/US forces to withdraw and have full civil war then i think most would prefer the troops.

Some symbolic hurling of abuse at UK/US forces would do the governement the world of good.

It's pretty immaterial why it is that Iraqis are opposed to the occupation, because whatever the origins it predisposes them to defiant behaviour and fuels the insurgency. Even if it's a product of ignorance (and I don't think it is), it's still a law and order problem, for which the coalition has no realistic solution (other than withdrawal).

 

[redsquirrel]

The oil fields weren't damaged were they? Could have sworn they were almost undamaged. So troops withdraw, then what happens?

They were mildly damaged and quickly repaired. And when the insurgents attacked them everything was dropped to make sure that oil kept flowing. Nevermind the huge number of troops and personnel assigned to looking after the oil.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What so if you give them an idiotic false dictomy(sp) then they would choose to have the troops remain. So fucking what?
It was on the Today program today (or maybe yesterday).

Well what is the alternative for the question i posed, keep the troops or *insert future of iraq sans UK/USA here*, you're probably typing it as i'm doing this, but that's bulletin boards.

I want to know about the dates of the figures, if they are from just after the invasion then it's pretty obvious why they are terrible. If they are current (last few months) then it's different.

 

[nino_savatte]

nino we have history, i haven't mentioned hypocricy or tried to be condescending. If i appear to have been i appologise, it was not intentional, can you please not put words into my mouth that we both know are rubbish.

#

Bob, your reaction to me is often of condescension or outright antipathy. You show no one else the same level of contempt as you do me. The amateur psychologist in me tells me that you appear have a deep-seated problem with me. I have not put "words into your mouth" as you suggest and as for hypocrisy, perhaps you should think about that one.

Even here you seem to apologise but snatch the "apology" back in the last sentence.

I've made my points, you didn't like them. I'm not losing any sleep over that.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It's pretty immaterial why it is that Iraqis are opposed to the occupation, because whatever the origins it predisposes them to defiant behaviour and fuels the insurgency. Even if it's a product of ignorance (and I don't think it is), it's still a law and order problem, for which the coalition has no realistic solution (other than withdrawal).

Or leave it as it is, shift the focus of the resistance so the public get more angry at the terrorists killing them than they are about the UK/US military. Look at NI, or any other insurgency in history, this will take decades, even after the inital cause is gone.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well what is the alternative for the question i posed, keep the troops or *insert future of iraq sans UK/USA here*, you're probably typing it as i'm doing this, but that's bulletin boards.

Why the fuck do you need to have anything else anyway. In fact that's just the type of question you shouldn't ask in polls as it's meaningless. The question should be "Do you want the occupying forces to remain?"

I want to know about the dates of the figures, if they are from just after the invasion then it's pretty obvious why they are terrible. If they are current (last few months) then it's different.

It was current data.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Bob, your reaction to me is often of condescension or outright antipathy. You show no one else the same level of contempt as you do me.

No, not really but then some folk will read too much into things and will reach the conclusion that they are being insulted. I know of one such individual who offers this as a reply, when he cannot think of anything else.

.

 

[nino_savatte]

Or leave it as it is, shift the focus of the resistance so the public get more angry at the terrorists killing them than they are about the UK/US military. Look at NI, or any other insurgency in history, this will take decades, even after the inital cause is gone.

Ah, but Iraq is not NI, is it? The roots of the conflict are different though similar. Similar, because of a British occupation and different because of the US's insistence on invading and overthrowing one of its clients.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Why the fuck do you need to have anything else anyway. In fact that's just the type of question you shouldn't ask in polls as it's meaningless. The question should be "Do you want the occupying forces to remain?"
It was current data.

Because if i was asked if i wanted the government to give me a lot of money then i'd say yes. But if i was told that the consequences would be that they cut off my leg id's say no. (unless it was a lot of money.

Of course iraqis don't want the forces there, but i wonder if there was an options saying "they are a nessisary evil".

 

[nino_savatte]

.

No point bob? Or simply lost for words? You fool no one with this sort of thing. By quoting me you haven't considered or, possibly, comprehended the text that you've posted up.

Bad form, bob.

 

[Sorry.]

Or leave it as it is, shift the focus of the resistance so the public get more angry at the terrorists killing them than they are about the UK/US military. Look at NI, or any other insurgency in history, this will take decades, even after the inital cause is gone.

but it isn't happening that way, is it. People are getting angry at the terrorists and the occupation. Leaving the nationalist insurgents as the big winners.

And it's the nationalist insurgents that carry with them the threat of civil war.

 

[nino_savatte]

Because if i was asked if i wanted the government to give me a lot of money then i'd say yes. But if i was told that the consequences would be that they cut off my leg id's say no. (unless it was a lot of money.

Of course iraqis don't want the forces there, but i wonder if there was an options saying "they are a nessisary evil".

So what are you saying? The Iraqis are stuck with "us" whether they like it or not? You are familiar with the terms "White Man's Burden" and "The noble savage" aren't you?

 

[redsquirrel]

Because if i was asked if i wanted the government to give me a lot of money then i'd say yes. But if i was told that the consequences would be that they cut off my leg id's say no. (unless it was a lot of money.

Of course iraqis don't want the forces there, but i wonder if there was an options saying "they are a nessisary evil".

What a shit "analogy". I really can't be bothered debating this point with you, I don't see what's so hard about understanding the fact that if you give people crappy, false dictomies in polls then the "answers" you get are going to be worthless. It's hardly fucking rocket science.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Ah, but Iraq is not NI, is it? The roots of the conflict are different though similar. Similar, because of a British occupation and different because of the US's insistence on invading and overthrowing one of its clients.

No, nor are the insurgents the tamil tigers, nor are they white russians, the Comunisits in Nepal, the Afgani resistance or anything else, the example was merely to try and introduce a timescale. But if you want to see what naked power from the barrel of a gun without a semblence of democracy is afganistan pre invasion is a good example i suppose.
UK forces will be there for years yet, untill the local forces can maintain some control and the insurgency will not have abated fully by the time we leave. It'll take decades for it to die down.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What a shit "analogy". I really can't be bothered debating this point with you, I don't see what's so hard about understanding the fact that if you give people crappy, false dictomies in polls then the "answers" you get are going to be worthless. It's hardly fucking rocket science.

Then don't. It's not going to break my heart and nothing i could say would convince you anyhow.

*shrugs*

 

[nino_savatte]

No, nor are the insurgents the tamil tigers, nor are they white russians, the Comunisits in Nepal, the Afgani resistance or anything else, the example was merely to try and introduce a timescale. But if you want to see what naked power from the barrel of a gun without a semblence of democracy is afganistan pre invasion is a good example i suppose.
UK forces will be there for years yet, untill the local forces can maintain some control and the insurgency will not have abated fully by the time we leave. It'll take decades for it to die down.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, bob. Are you saying it is the white man's "duty" to stay and impose order on these Arab savages? Because that's the message I get from both you and the government. Gladstone died a long time ago but I get the feeling his spectre still haunts the minds of politicians...and others.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

but it isn't happening that way, is it. People are getting angry at the terrorists and the occupation. Leaving the nationalist insurgents as the big winners.

And it's the nationalist insurgents that carry with them the threat of civil war.

It's still too soon for that, once the local forces are up to scratch and the UK/US forces are withdrawn or reduced to a tiny group in the desert then all that will be left is the terrorists to hate.

All the insurgents have the threat of civil war.

 

[redsquirrel]

It's still too soon for that, once the local forces are up to scratch

What you mean those local forces full of insurgents and other partisan groups?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Not sure what you are trying to say here, bob. Are you saying it is the white man's "duty" to stay and impose order on these Arab savages? Because that's the message I get from both you and the government.

I am trying to be polite in this thread, implying that i am a racist is not repaying that courtesy.

 

[nino_savatte]

Just fill the security forces with Peshmerga fighters...that'll eliminate infiltration surely.

 

[Sorry.]

UK forces will be there for years yet, untill the local forces can maintain some control and the insurgency will not have abated fully by the time we leave. It'll take decades for it to die down.

I think you have to adopt a far more political conception of counter-insurgency. The issue isn't really how many you kill, or how many you battles you win, but how successful you are at persuading people not to join the insurgents. That means negotiating with the moderates (ie. concluding a ceasefire with the nationalists), isolating the extremists (Zarqawi et al.) and dealing with the social problems that cause desperation (unemployment, poverty and casual violence). I don't see any of that being possible under occupation.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What you mean those local forces full of insurgents and other partisan groups?

Yes, although i dispute your choice of "full" here.

Screening has been improved, and the iraqi government will have to sort that out over time.