Time for British soldiers to leave iraq?

Victor

Sand wrote:

The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured.

They must also wear an insignia identifiable at a distance (presumably they weren't) and answer to a chain of command (presumably they do, but you never know). Theres one other criteria that I can't think of at the moment.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured. So long as they bore their weapons openly, the Geneva Convention would apply

Hmm, tell that to the people who are detained at Gitmo.

SAS have uniforms. Even so your kind of stretching the BS on this one as they were found in a car wired to explode while dressed up as Iraqis (wearing wigs too) and killed 2 police officers when questioned.

Memnoch

and when the car did explode the attack would probably be blamed on "iraqi terrorists", one has to wonder how many of the "terrorist" bombings in iraq were done by "terrorists" and how many by such covert coalition forces. After all we all know they aren't averse to lying to further their ends, or killing innocent civillians for that matter.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

SAS have uniforms. Even so your kind of stretching the BS on this one as they were found in a car wired to explode while dressed up as Iraqis (wearing wigs too) and killed 2 police officers when questioned.

The 2 sas guys were in a car wired to explode?? Where did you get that information from? I've seen no reliable reports of that only unsubstantiated reports from surprise surprise... the Shia militia
And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?

Hagar

Memnoch wrote:

and when the car did explode the attack would probably be blamed on "iraqi terrorists", one has to wonder how many of the "terrorist" bombings in iraq were done by "terrorists" and how many by such covert coalition forces. After all we all know they aren't averse to lying to further their ends, or killing innocent civillians for that matter.

Dublin & Monaghan bombings ?

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

The 2 sas guys were in a car wired to explode?? Where did you get that information from? I've seen no reliable reports of that only unsubstantiated reports from surprise surprise... the Shia militia
And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?

the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.

Please forgive me if I don't share your confidence in that.

Hobbes

And where did you get the information that they killed two police officers whilst in custody? I hope it was from a better source than the Shia militia?

Iraqi police reported it as such, along with the other information. NOT the Militia.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/28/2005&Cat=14&Num=001

Various sources listed there to go check up on.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Please forgive me if I don't share your confidence in that.

really, is it merely prejudice then that causes you to stock so much faith in a coalition that obviously lied while making a case for the war to the international community in the first place. And that have been repeatedly cited by human rights organisations for systemic abuse and for dismissing the geneva convention.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

really, is it merely prejudice then that causes you to stock so much faith in a coalition that obviously lied while making a case for the war to the international community in the first place. And that have been repeatedly cited by human rights organisations for systemic abuse and for dismissing the geneva convention.

No it's a wealth of lifes experience actually which allows me to have some perspective about things rather than jump to conclusions based on what one side or another say.
I've said I dont regard the Shia militia as a reliable source ,you've jumped to the conclusion that at this time I regard the coalition as gospel because of that have you?I dont regard them as uber reliable but at least they are subject to reasonable investigation-the type of which allows you to form your obvious entitlement to a disregard for them
At this level typed words on a screen wouldnt be quarter enough to put across what perspective I have here in the same way a spoken conversation would.

breandan

Memnoch wrote:

the shia militia are as good a source as the british or US military, or their political offices.

You beat me to it, if you listen to the daily breifings given by the American military regarding miliraey operations and the general state of play in Iraq it would be hard to argue that they are any more reliable or credible than those of a Shia malitia.

breandan

Earthman wrote:

I dont regard them as uber reliable but at least they are subject to reasonable investigation-

It must be remembered that in much of Iraq all we have to go on are the breifings by the American and British military as its simply to dangerous for reporters so I dont think there can be reasonable investigation into many incidents that take place daily across Iraq even if there is the will to do so.

lili

any update on this story?

breandan

lili wrote:

any update on this story?

The British have today in the most clear fashion accused the Iranians for involvement in every one of the deaths of their troops over the summer months by slupplying arms and training to Shia malitias, in this case most likely followers of Sadr.

Rock Climber

Lets face the facts here.

These insurgents are misguided scum just like the people that blew up omagh or those kids in Warrington .
They have no morals, they are just blowing up people right left and centre now for sport in some kind of misguided political or religous fanaticism example

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the British and U.S presence there at the moment-one things for certain, they should stay untill theres a reasonable and capable local force to do the job that they are doing now ie combatting these militants.

I dont know what Iran or the Shia militia must be thinking as they are a majority in parliament and ergo they are secure.Theres no need for the venom. FFS like if (notwithstanding their motives re the oil) Sadam was still in power these guys would be like the marsh arabs and just be basically downtrodden.

They should have more sense and work to to create stability rather than wrecking it , the result would lead to a quicker exit by foreign troops.
Those governments would be only delighted to get the troops home anyway by now, its so unpopular at home.

But instead they murder-what a bunch of hypocrites.

Memnoch

Rock Climber wrote:

Lets face the facts here.

These insurgents are misguided scum just like the people that blew up omagh or those kids in Warrington .
They have no morals, they are just blowing up people right left and centre now for sport in some kind of misguided political or religous fanaticism example

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the British and U.S presence there at the moment-one things for certain, they should stay untill theres a reasonable and capable local force to do the job that they are doing now ie combatting these militants.

I dont know what Iran or the Shia militia must be thinking as they are a majority in parliament and ergo they are secure.Theres no need for the venom. FFS like if (notwithstanding their motives re the oil) Sadam was still in power these guys would be like the marsh arabs and just be basically downtrodden.

They should have more sense and work to to create stability rather than wrecking it , the result would lead to a quicker exit by foreign troops.
Those governments would be only delighted to get the troops home anyway by now, its so unpopular at home.

But instead they murder-what a bunch of hypocrites.

saying that all iraqi insurgents are hypocritical terrorists scum is the same as saying that all americans are war crime committing greedy fundamentalist christian fanatics that only want to get richer at the expense of the lives of other innocent people.

But I guess when reason fails it's easier to simply paint those you dislike with a broad brush that you may easily generalise and villainise them, thus by proxy defending the indefensible.

p.s. it's very hard to sit down and work constructively with an invading army who's only purpose is to plunder and pillage your country.

lucernarian

originally posted by Memnoch
saying that all iraqi insurgents are hypocritical terrorists scum is the same as saying that all americans are war crime committing greedy fundamentalist christian fanatics that only want to get richer at the expense of the lives of other innocent people.

No it is not!!! If an insurgent is a person who is using violence to achieve an objective then yes they all are hypocritical terrorist scum as:
They are hypocrites for claiming to fight a "holy" war,
They are terrorists as their objectives include terrorising people in Iraq, espec. Ameircan soldiers and Iraqi civilians trying to enlist in the security forces. And blowing up your fellow men and women is a scummy thing to do.

Obviously, not every American is a bloodthirsty redneck.

EDIT: The coalition soldiers are not going around shooting and blowing up women and children "for their religion" so I don't see why they (many of whom are reservists) should be regarded as pillagers.

Memnoch

To_be_confirmed wrote:

No it is not!!! If an insurgent is a person who is using violence to achieve an objective then yes they all are hypocritical terrorist scum as:

gotta love the double standards here...
the coalition of the killing used violence to achieve their objectives.

They are hypocrites for claiming to fight a "holy" war,

So every single insurgent fighting in iraq claims to be a part of a holy war? More generalisations please, they lend a lot of credence to your arguement. Holy or not really means very little to me, religion always has been and always will be a tool used by people to further their own ends, ppl who make claims of "holy" war are no different in that respect.

They are terrorists as their objectives include terrorising people in Iraq, espec. Ameircan soldiers and Iraqi civilians trying to enlist in the security forces. And blowing up your fellow men and women is a scummy thing to do.

again generalising them all under the same brush. I think next time you reply to one of my posts kindly do me the courtesy of actually READING the post and what it was about. American soldiers are part of an invasion force in another country, they are fair game by any standards. Iraqi "civilians" signing up to security forces run and supported by the americans would be considered collaboraters, just as during the 2nd world war where people who cooperated with the germans were considered collaborators. Collaboraters are considered fair game in a war of independance. I agree that blowing up your fellow men and woman is a scummy thing to do, but pretty much all violence involves blowing people up or shooting them, the insurgents however have had violence forced upon them by the invasion.

Obviously, not every American is a bloodthirsty redneck.

obviously, not every Iraqi fighting against them is a hypocritical, terrorist scum. Again I urge you to read my post before replying and dwell on the word "generalisation".

EDIT: The coalition soldiers are not going around shooting and blowing up women and children "for their religion" so I don't see why they (many of whom are reservists) should be regarded as pillagers.

They have shot and blown up women and children, and dropped bombs on them. It doesn't matter what their individual motivations are because UNLIKE the iraqi insurgents, the coalition of the killing are part of a singular multinational force with a designated command structure. Hence individuals who are a part of this force share responsibility for atrocities committed by their command. This means that the motivations of their leaders are the only motivations that really can be considered. If they follow orders and kill innocents it doesn't matter if their objectives are to pillage or not, for that is the objective of their leaders and in complying with those orders they are party to the crime.

lucernarian

Firstly, and most importantly, I think you are going way too OTT Menmoch. There are Aunt Sallies everywhere in your post.

Originally posted by Menmoch
gotta love the double standards here...
the coalition of the killing used violence to achieve their objectives.

It is fair to say that coalition forces use violence to achieve their objectives in many situations however I find it ironic that you generalise when referring to "the coalition of the killing". The term is in itself rather all-inclusive.

The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents, who would view the maiming and deaths of all coalition troops in Iraq as a victory.

So every single insurgent fighting in iraq claims to be a part of a holy war? More generalisations please, they lend a lot of credence to your arguement. Holy or not really means very little to me, religion always has been and always will be a tool used by people to further their own ends, ppl who make claims of "holy" war are no different in that respect.

When you find for me an insurgent group or even a single insurgent in Iraq who do not view the war in Iraq as involving Allah, please tell me.

again generalising them all under the same brush. I think next time you reply to one of my posts kindly do me the courtesy of actually READING the post and what it was about. American soldiers are part of an invasion force in another country, they are fair game by any standards. Iraqi "civilians" signing up to security forces run and supported by the americans would be considered collaboraters, just as during the 2nd world war where people who cooperated with the germans were considered collaborators. Collaboraters are considered fair game in a war of independance. I agree that blowing up your fellow men and woman is a scummy thing to do, but pretty much all violence involves blowing people up or shooting them, the insurgents however have had violence forced upon them by the invasion.

This is your most unfair point IMO. Firstly, I read your post so I am glad to say I have shown you the aforementioned courtesy. To say that people, American soldiers or not, are "fair game by any standards" is a total distortion of reality and I can only read that statement as a justification for killing people. I would like to point out at this time that I condemn American soldiers kinning other human beings.

obviously, not every Iraqi fighting against them is a hypocritical, terrorist scum. Again I urge you to read my post before replying and dwell on the word "generalisation".

You have given me no reason that I can understand for believing that they are not terrorists so I must apologise as I do not see the obvious.

They have shot and blown up women and children, and dropped bombs on them. It doesn't matter what their individual motivations are because UNLIKE the iraqi insurgents, the coalition of the killing are part of a singular multinational force with a designated command structure. Hence individuals who are a part of this force share responsibility for atrocities committed by their command. This means that the motivations of their leaders are the only motivations that really can be considered. If they follow orders and kill innocents it doesn't matter if their objectives are to pillage or not, for that is the objective of their leaders and in complying with those orders they are party to the crime.

Your use of the word "unlike" would suggest that the point following that was a severe condemnation of coalition forces, which would mean that the Iraqis were acting under different circumstances when it comes to their own actions and the only reason I can see for this point is to justify the actions of Iraqi insurgents, whose actions have included the bombing of a school in a poor area of Baghdad with many children dead. And there were no mitilary targets inside.

Memnoch

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Firstly, and most importantly, I think you are going way too OTT Menmoch. There are Aunt Sallies everywhere in your post.

hypocrisy abounds

It is fair to say that coalition forces use violence to achieve their objectives in many situations however I find it ironic that you generalise when referring to "the coalition of the killing". The term is in itself rather all-inclusive.

It's not possible to generalise when referring to the coalition because they are a single organisation. Individual soldiers within the organisation all follow the chain of command, so you can actually talk about it as a single force because that's what it is. The "insurgents" on the other hand are made up of countless diverse groups with diverging aims, objectives and modus operandi and as such it's not possible to talk about them as a single group. This is the point I've been trying to make in my last two posts and one you dont' seem to be able to get.

The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents, who would view the maiming and deaths of all coalition troops in Iraq as a victory.

It doesn't matter what the bottom of the chain of the command seek, at the end of the day the dropped the bombs and fired the guns and have killed countless iraqis in a war of agression. Being at the bottom of the chain is no excuse as I've said before.
Also your claims of what the "apparent objectives" of "most insurgents" are completely ludicrous and full of hot air. How do you know what "most insurgents" want? Where is the evidence to support your so called claims?

When you find for me an insurgent group or even a single insurgent in Iraq who do not view the war in Iraq as involving Allah, please tell me.

wrong, it is your allegation that ALL insurgents or even a VAST majority are part of this holy war, it is up to you to prove this allegation or withdraw it.

This is your most unfair point IMO. Firstly, I read your post so I am glad to say I have shown you the aforementioned courtesy. To say that people, American soldiers or not, are "fair game by any standards" is a total distortion of reality

there is no distortion of reality here. They invaded another country in a war of agression and killed countless number of it's inhabitants, OFF COURSE they are fair game. They started the war and invaded the country, if they die they only have themselves to blame. Following orders is NOT an excuse.

and I can only read that statement as a justification for killing people. I would like to point out at this time that I condemn American soldiers kinning other human beings.

I'm glad you condemn american soldiers killing other human beings. I however do not condemn iraqis for defending themselves against the aggression of the coalition of the killing, since they have little other choice.

You have given me no reason that I can understand for believing that they are not terrorists so I must apologise as I do not see the obvious.

and still you don't get it? Who is "they"? You seem to somehow be able to lump all the "insurgents" into a single umbrella when there is no such organisation.

Your use of the word "unlike" would suggest that the point following that was a severe condemnation of coalition forces, which would mean that the Iraqis were acting under different circumstances when it comes to their own actions and the only reason I can see for this point is to justify the actions of Iraqi insurgents, whose actions have included the bombing of a school in a poor area of Baghdad with many children dead. And there were no mitilary targets inside.

how do u know it was the insurgents that bombed the school? maybe it was an american black ops mission? where is the proof. But even leaving that aside the indisputable fact remains that the americans are on iraqi soil, not vice versa. The iraqi's have a right to defend themselves against this invasion. So yes the iraqi's ARE acting under different circumstances. They are invaded and occupied, not the ones plundering another country.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

Also your claims of what the "apparent objectives" of "most insurgents" are completely ludicrous and full of hot air. How do you know what "most insurgents" want? Where is the evidence to support your so called claims?

Thats Baloney.
We know what the insurgents do, they bomb shoot and kill all around them regardless of their victims colour religion or politics.
We also know what umberella organisation uniformly comes out with the yeee haw praise for insurgent acts.
You are applying a double standard here and it seems blatant.

breandan

To_be_confirmed wrote:

The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents,

There are anywhere from 70-90 insurgent attacks everyday in Iraq, about 4 or 5 of them result in civilian deaths one or two at most per day which actively target civilians, usually Shias done by Zarqawi's mob so to say that most insurgents target civilians is false and a clear case of believing what the Bush/Blair meadia tell you to believe.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

Thats Baloney.

your post and everything you post is baloney then. Argue the point if you will, without resorting to dismissals. Really I would have expected more prudence by a moderator of the forum than resorting to personal insults.

We know what the insurgents do, they bomb shoot and kill all around them regardless of their victims colour religion or politics.

really? we know this how? because your beloved coalition of the killing tell you so? We do know for a FACT however that the coalition drops bombs knowing full well that there could be civillians down there. So in fact it is them who bomb and kill all around regardless of their victims colour, religion, politics , age or innocence. If your going to make such ridiculously outrageous claims then you should try to provide some proof. Maybe a statistical meta-analysis of all attacks carried out by "insurgents" in iraq? For that off course you need to be able to list each and every attack and prove it is attributable to insurgents, otherwise you are just making it up as you go along.

We also know what umberella organisation uniformly comes out with the yeee haw praise for insurgent acts.

by "umbrella organisations" I assume you refer to al-queda. Who will off course praise any attack against the coalition anywhere. And claim it to be part of their campaign. There is no surprise there. Why shouldn't they? It gives them more "street cred" among those who believe them. It also suits the coalition of the killing, and posters like yourself who will latch on any excuse to justify the actions of the US and British armies in Iraq. At the end of the day though there is little proof to show that there is such an umbrella organisation as al queda really in control of things.

I agree with the right of iraqi's to defend themselves against american aggression, invasion and conquest. This does not make me a terrorist. Nor does this make me a part of al queda. Because I don't ascribe to their motivations and am against their policy of killing innocents. TBH i'm against all violence in general, but I don't think the Iraqi's have much choice in this case.

You are applying a double standard here and it seems blatant.

Where is the double standard? You are the one claiming completely unsupported assumptions as gospel fact. The fact that the coalition IS a single umbrella organisation with a specific chain of command is a well established fact. But to say the same of the insurgents is ridiculous in the least. I doubt most of them are even in any sort of contact with any one else in different parts of the country.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

your post and everything you post is baloney then. Argue the point if you will, without resorting to dismissals. Really I would have expected more prudence by a moderator of the forum than resorting to personal insults.

Quite frankly your definition of what is a personal insult is as inaccurate as your post.
The rules are attack the post and not the poster.I said the post was baloney and I stated why.My reasoning was that I have eyes in my head and ears that can listen and I know what organisation trumpets and praises insurgent murder.

really? we know this how? because your beloved coalition of the killing tell you so?

Seeing as you are so insistant on proof, you are applying another double standard here as you are stating I love the coalition without proof. Where have I stated my love for the coalition,I'm merely challenging you on your stated support for insurgent murder which I'm viewing as hypocritical and one sided.

We do know for a FACT however that the coalition drops bombs knowing full well that there could be civillians down there. So in fact it is them who bomb and kill all around regardless of their victims colour, religion, politics , age or innocence.

I'm not talking about the coalition at all,it's you that are bringing them up apparently as a vague justification for your support for the insurgents.

If your going to make such ridiculously outrageous claims then you should try to provide some proof. Maybe a statistical meta-analysis of all attacks carried out by "insurgents" in iraq? For that off course you need to be able to list each and every attack and prove it is attributable to insurgents, otherwise you are just making it up as you go along.

Now thats baloney,All I need do is direct you to Alqueda praise for these attacks and that wouldnt be hard.

by "umbrella organisations" I assume you refer to al-queda. Who will off course praise any attack against the coalition anywhere. And claim it to be part of their campaign. There is no surprise there. Why shouldn't they? It gives them more "street cred" among those who believe them.

this baloney astounds me to be honest-not only do they praise it , they openly encourage it and you are trying to state that they aren't an umberella group for it.It doesn't wash, but feel free to run against the wind there.

It also suits the coalition of the killing, and posters like yourself who will latch on any excuse to justify the actions of the US and British armies in Iraq. At the end of the day though there is little proof to show that there is such an umbrella organisation as al queda really in control of things.

More baloney,I never mentioned the coalition here at all.You on the other hand are as a justification for your support for murderers.
Thats no better than supporting the continuity IRA to be honest.

I agree with the right of iraqi's to defend themselves against american aggression, invasion and conquest. This does not make me a terrorist. Nor does this make me a part of al queda. Because I don't ascribe to their motivations and am against their policy of killing innocents.

Well you seem to agree with their right then to suicide bomb with no regard for who gets killed.

TBH i'm against all violence in general, but I don't think the Iraqi's have much choice in this case.

I suggest you take a deep look at what you are saying there.
On the one hand you claim to be anti violence and on the other you are advocating it not as a last option.There was a free fair and open election in Iraq with a huge voter turnout which has produced a government that these insurgents are at odds with.
Your approach seems to be violence first and listen to the voters later.

You are the one claiming completely unsupported assumptions as gospel fact.

Au contraire I did mention an umberella group that supports encourages and trains insurgents.The fact that there is so much readily available and widespread knowledge as to who they are and what they do meant I felt no need to mention them by name in this case.

The fact that the coalition IS a single umbrella organisation with a specific chain of command is a well established fact. But to say the same of the insurgents is ridiculous in the least.

I never mentioned the coalition,but it is a fact that the insurgents are murdering Iraqi's right left and centre now without so much as a bye you or leave .The fact that you are so willing to condone this,I'm judging by this thread,I'm becoming less astonished by.I do however find it extremely hypocritical and double stadardised that you will condone one organisation that kills innocent life in a blazé fashion whilst apparently looking to feign indignation at another organisation that has done like wise. It's complete hypocrisy.

lili

i do have a question. i think the answer to this question could give an enlightening on what is going in iraq.

the question is simple :

what are the western countries doing in the mideast, lest say, since one century?

Sand

what are the western countries doing in the mideast, lest say, since one century?

Theres oil in the middle east, a commodity that underpins the economies of the entire developed world and thus the entire western world takes an interest in the middle east.

To ensure the supply of that oil the western powers have either accepted repressive dictators in the middle east. This has had a side effect of feeding discontent and indirectly extremist terrorist groups. The U.S. and company, in reaction to a large scale terrorist spectacular, decided on a change of policy, to remove a dictator and replace him with a free government, elected by the people.

Let me ask you a question in return. I think it might be enlightening about the shortcomings of the "evil/oil" theories. If it was all about the oil, and the US leadership was so corrupt and evil that it would go to war and risk the lives of thousands of its troops (with resulting unpopularity) for it, were they simply so honest and upstanding that they wouldnt agree to reaching some sort of agreement with Saddam on the side? Saddam agrees not to threaten the Saudis, the U.S. can then remove its force honourably from a very controversial spot, and the oil flows....

After all U.S. (and others of course) companies were already buying oil from Saddam prior to the war.

really? we know this how?

You remember that stampede that killed hundreds? A shia religious cermony? Do you remember what helped spark the panic? Might it have been the mortar attack on the proccession earlier? Thats just one example that I remember off the top of my head. Seriously, find a news source other than whatever it is youre reading.

TBH i'm against all violence in general

No youre not. Youre in favour of violence, with few qualifications that I can identify. Youve stated so again and again in these posts. Dont come into a thread supporting an ultra violent insurgency and pretend youre the Dalai fricking Lama. Thats insulting to everyone else on the thread. Youve got an extreme viewpoint, so either back it up or dont waste everyones time trying to get a reaction and then hiding behind self professed pacifism.

growler

There's a lot about the present conflict in Iraq that doesn't make much sense, the coalition obviously understimated the likelihood of guerilla resistance and the ability of a guerrilla force to sustain itself seemingly indefinately with weapons, explosives and personnel and it would seem with the support of a significant proportion of the civilian population. From my point of view, were I an Iraqi I would be have to seriously question the rationale for grassroots support for the insurgency, I don't deny that Iraqis have a right to resist invasion, but, the insurgents ( although impossible to distinguish between one group and the next in many cases) are proving themselves to be sociopaths rather than a resistance with any kind of sane plan for the future of Iraq. Civil war seems to creep closer each day, what sane person would want to see that happen? After so many years of secular life under the Ba'athists, how have so many seemingly become radical fundamentalists almost overnight? while life under Sadaam wass no picnic for some, I'm surprised that there isn't a more wipespread recognition that Iraq faces a choice between civil war resulting in a theocracy ( probably leading to an iran / iraq shia/ sunni war) or some form of secular self governance albeit within the boundaries dictated by the *satan incarnate* , the US. However that's all verry well for me to say but the majority in Iraq are ill-educated, ill informed and probably scared out of their minds by the insanity thats happening all around them daily. As it took over 30 (or 800) years for our own population to get so sick of violence that we sought a peaceful alternative, I'm probably being too optimistic that even a few years of killings would see a similar shift in Irqi opinion.

The turnout for the election would seem to indicate a popular support for normalisation, I remember reading somewhere that for a terrorist / resistance campaign to function it needs the support of about 10% of the population, the failure of islamic leaders, both sunni and shia , to condemn the insurgency , preferring insead to watch their own people die daily is incredible, but I guess not too surprising coming from those more concerned with the next life rather than this one. At the heart of the problem, for me anyway, is this unwillingness of their clerics to seek a stable future for Iraq and all Iraqis. I think this may be partly or indeed wholly a result of the success of Al Qaeda in radicalising global muslim opinion to be anti-western, the first middle eastern clerics who are brave / foolish enough to put the interests of their people before the jihadi call to arms of some pseudo global islamic-christian/ jewish war would be villified in islamic media.

Iran's seeming involvement in the supply of arms to both shia and sunni groups ( as reported in the Times and Independent (uk) yesterday) makes sense in some ways as the longer the US is in up to their necks in Iraq the less likely they can turn their attention on Tehran.

To speculate further, as Iran has shown itself to be intent on ignoring international pressure ( regardless of the rights or wrongs of its nuclear ambitions) I think it's likely we'll see Iran becoming sucked into the war, particularly if civil war does happen. I don't see how the coalition could fight a conventional war in iran, iraq and afghanistan with Syria likely to get involved too.

If Iran can covertly keep the pressure on in Iraq and ignite a civil war, it may force GWB to go home with his tail between his legs and then the Islamic Republic can ride to the recue of their Shia brothers in the south. This may even give the coalition the reason it needs to get out or risk facing trying to win an unwinnable war.

Lastly, if the coalition were to pull out now it would be far greater crime that the original invasion, abandoning the country to the various armed groups would be morally unjustifiable ( and wouldn't help with much needed oil supplies either of course).

lili

Sand wrote:

The U.S. and company, in reaction to a large scale terrorist spectacular, decided on a change of policy, to remove a dictator and replace him with a free government, elected by the people.

Let me ask you a question in return. I think it might be enlightening about the shortcomings of the "evil/oil" theories. If it was all about the oil, and the US leadership was so corrupt and evil that it would go to war and risk the lives of thousands of its troops (with resulting unpopularity) for it, were they simply so honest and upstanding that they wouldnt agree to reaching some sort of agreement with Saddam on the side? Saddam agrees not to threaten the Saudis, the U.S. can then remove its force honourably from a very controversial spot, and the oil flows....

After all U.S. (and others of course) companies were already buying oil from Saddam prior to the war.

so, in your opinion, US took ride on saddam for terrorism purpose?
are you like those numerous americans which have been convinced that it was a link between saddam and ben laden?


and for answer to your question. yes, i think that bush administration is able to risk american lives (not that many compared at the casualties there) for its agenda. and you know what? i don't even believe it would be dammageable for his popularity. nothing like a flag and propaganda to persuade the average american that what is done is for the good.

Sand

so, in your opinion, US took ride on saddam for terrorism purpose?

Im guessing that neo-conservitive thinking (U.S. should use force to support/create democratic allies in the Middle East rather than undemocratic dictators) became popular, especially with everyone lining to tell the U.S. that it was their fault for supporting dictators like Saddam in the first place.

Overall though, given the vast number of concerns and interests with their own motives involved in declaring and prosecuting a war I dont think there any particular thing you can point at and say "Thats it, thats the cause. If it wasnt for this, they wouldnt have invaded Iraq".

are you like those numerous americans which have been convinced that it was a link between saddam and ben laden?

Im not american. Saddam was a Baathist, an Arab nationalist socialist party with links all the way back to the Nazis in the 40s. Bin Laden is a radical Sunni. They dont see eye to eye on a lot of things. More than likely Bin Laden would have considered Saddam to be a Pharoh type figure. The best (only?) way Saddam helped Bin Laden was through inflicting misery on his people, making anything - even radical Islam seem somewhat attractive.

To answer growlers query over where this radical islam suddenly came from in a secular society - it probably was always there, especially for the Shia who were repressed by Saddam. All other political parties were crushed by Saddam but with religion even he had to step somewhat carefully. Hence religion became a badge of identity for the Shia and the only acceptable place to exspress dissent - dissent formed and framed by religious experience, and when the repression was stopped by the Coalition forces they were suddenly free to express their common identity very confidently.

and for answer to your question. yes, i think that bush administration is able to risk american lives (not that many compared at the casualties there) for its agenda. and you know what? i don't even believe it would be dammageable for his popularity. nothing like a flag and propaganda to persuade the average american that what is done is for the good.

Well you shouldnt trust your opinion so much. Whilst he won the last election hell ever need to just last year, his popularity has undisputedly suffered from the war. Secondly you havent provided any justification for why you think the US administration is evil enough to undertake a risky course of action like war, but not evil enough to undetake a safe course of action like making a deal with Saddam for the oil? Thats okay, you take your time.

lili

making a deal with saddam for oil?
no, i think that saddam became a way to much embarassing for a so called democratical country.
it was more the way of the frenchies which were already installed there.