... will the UK, Australia and the rest of the 'coalition of the drilling' remain in Iraq and continue the good fight for justice, peace, equality and harmony there?
lol
lol
They'll be gone at the drop of a hat once the US pulls out (hopefully). In fact, I bet they all want to withdraw right now but don't want to upset America. I think they should all withdraw so that we will be discouraged from staying and maybe our country will realize that we've spent too much time and money over there. Also, the US has the majority of the troops over there anyway, and we're having enough trouble as it is. If we left, the UK and Australia would have a tough time keeping things under control by themselves.
If all Coalition forces pulled out of Iraq would it really be that bad? The country wouldn't be a threat to the West (even if left unchecked) for a long time. It's debatable as to whether thet were a threat in the first place, but let's not go there.
What we have to think about is how it would effect the people of Iraq? For better or worse, I honestly don't know.
To answer the OP's question however, from what I've seen of how American troops behave in Iraq, how they fight etc (Blasting full-auto at everything that moves while shouting "YEEHAH!!!") I honestly don't think they are doing anything that European forces couldn't do. No offense intended to any Americans, thats just how I see it
What we have to think about is how it would effect the people of Iraq? For better or worse, I honestly don't know.
To answer the OP's question however, from what I've seen of how American troops behave in Iraq, how they fight etc (Blasting full-auto at everything that moves while shouting "YEEHAH!!!") I honestly don't think they are doing anything that European forces couldn't do. No offense intended to any Americans, thats just how I see it
Last edited by Larkin (2007-07-05 04:04:55)
I agree that the European and Aussie forces are just as powerful and capable as American forces, but we are just there in sheer numbers. If we were to withdraw, the population of foreign military troops in Iraq would drastically decrease and those remaining would have trouble trying to keep too many areas in check and not having enough people there to do so. So it'd be necessary for them to pull out as well to keep from getting massacred.
From a political standpoint, it would make sense to withdraw as soon as Americans do and just save face and use the excuse that "we were just following the Americans there anyway and were helping them out". The politicians would probably take less heat for a failed war than if they were to say "Yeah even though the people who started this war left, we're still going to stick here and fight it out."
From a political standpoint, it would make sense to withdraw as soon as Americans do and just save face and use the excuse that "we were just following the Americans there anyway and were helping them out". The politicians would probably take less heat for a failed war than if they were to say "Yeah even though the people who started this war left, we're still going to stick here and fight it out."
UK shouldn't have gone in the first place IMO
It doesn't change anything. The fact is Iraq is screwed with or without America, and the outcome of all this will be the creation of 3 different countries after a brutal civil war, which has started even with America in Iraq. Then, they'll have to send troops to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
The British are already commited to a withdrawal timetable I think. I think we'd stick to that, maybe even accelerate it and I doubt the Ozzies are going to want to hang around there on their own.
reasonably likelysergeriver wrote:
It doesn't change anything. The fact is Iraq is screwed with or without America, and the outcome of all this will be the creation of 3 different countries after a brutal civil war, which has started even with America in Iraq. Then, they'll have to send troops to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
3 separate countries wouldn't be in the interest of the Iraqi people though, cause it would drastically reduce their influence on ME politics and open the doors for even more Iranian influence, so I doubt it will happen. Civil war, yes, we already have that. Who will come out of that vicorious, I cannot say...
I agree that it wouldn't be in their best interests, but the people after this civil war don't give a shit about Iraqi people, and the thing is I don't see an outcome with an unified Iraq.B.Schuss wrote:
reasonably likelysergeriver wrote:
It doesn't change anything. The fact is Iraq is screwed with or without America, and the outcome of all this will be the creation of 3 different countries after a brutal civil war, which has started even with America in Iraq. Then, they'll have to send troops to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
3 separate countries wouldn't be in the interest of the Iraqi people though, cause it would drastically reduce their influence on ME politics and open the doors for even more Iranian influence, so I doubt it will happen. Civil war, yes, we already have that. Who will come out of that vicorious, I cannot say...
Unfortunately the damage is done... There is no going back yes I am a strong advocate against the Invasion, yes I might not agree with America use of over excessive force, there are many things I do not agree with. But I'd have to say that America now owes the Iraqi people a lot more than before.
In fact I believe that it is America's responsibility to rebuild the infrastructure they destroyed. At least see through the development and reconstruction. Then if they deem it necessary to pull out then they should but again if they pull out the entire country may fall into anarchy.
Well America slept in this bed.. now they gotta make it!
In fact I believe that it is America's responsibility to rebuild the infrastructure they destroyed. At least see through the development and reconstruction. Then if they deem it necessary to pull out then they should but again if they pull out the entire country may fall into anarchy.
Well America slept in this bed.. now they gotta make it!
but if we withdraw....that means WE LOSE!!!
^ ^ ^ lol... what happened in Vietnam again? :p j/k
The US fighting Turkey? Now there's something you don't see every day! It would be very interesting to see how that might work out... lolsergeriver wrote:
It doesn't change anything. The fact is Iraq is screwed with or without America, and the outcome of all this will be the creation of 3 different countries after a brutal civil war, which has started even with America in Iraq. Then, they'll have to send troops to protect Kurdistan from Turkey.
ƒ³
If the US withdraws, there goes an extremely large chunk of manpower and with all due respect the other members of the coalition will not be able to hold all of the key locations as it will stretch their forces over a much wider area.
Nope they will continue the fight in the streets and subways of London etc....Or is last week a distant memory already?CameronPoe wrote:
... will the UK, Australia and the rest of the 'coalition of the drilling' remain in Iraq and continue the good fight for justice, peace, equality and harmony there?
lol
lol he's back! It depends though who you consider to be the aggressor and who retaliates.lowing wrote:
Nope they will continue the fight in the streets and subways of London etc....Or is last week a distant memory already?CameronPoe wrote:
... will the UK, Australia and the rest of the 'coalition of the drilling' remain in Iraq and continue the good fight for justice, peace, equality and harmony there?
lol
Since you're here though: Gordon Brown announces that British forces will withdraw from Iraq, and a few days later the UK is attacked. How would you explain that?
ƒ³
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.oug wrote:
lol he's back! It depends though who you consider to be the aggressor and who retaliates.lowing wrote:
Nope they will continue the fight in the streets and subways of London etc....Or is last week a distant memory already?CameronPoe wrote:
... will the UK, Australia and the rest of the 'coalition of the drilling' remain in Iraq and continue the good fight for justice, peace, equality and harmony there?
lol
Since you're here though: Gordon Brown announces that British forces will withdraw from Iraq, and a few days later the UK is attacked. How would you explain that?
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
I totally agree. But I don't know which jihad you're talking about. Who has called for a jihad, and against whom?lowing wrote:
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.
Oh but it is the war, in the sense that there is no bigger picture (war on terror style) of which this battle is a front.lowing wrote:
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
But you didn't answer my question I think.
Last edited by oug (2007-07-05 06:54:56)
ƒ³
It is the major front now yes, but the war wages all over the world.oug wrote:
I totally agree. But I don't know which jihad you're talking about. Who has called for a jihad, and against whom?lowing wrote:
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.Oh but it is the war, in the sense that there is no bigger picture (war on terror style) of which this battle is a front.lowing wrote:
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
I was under the impression jihad was called by AL-Quida. Or did I miss something
Last edited by lowing (2007-07-05 06:56:13)
Ok trying again to answer. The bombing would have taken place if England was in Iraq or not. This is not a war for Iraq. It is a war against the west.oug wrote:
I totally agree. But I don't know which jihad you're talking about. Who has called for a jihad, and against whom?lowing wrote:
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.Oh but it is the war, in the sense that there is no bigger picture (war on terror style) of which this battle is a front.lowing wrote:
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
But you didn't answer my question I think.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/ … index.html
Last edited by lowing (2007-07-05 07:04:05)
I agree.lowing wrote:
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
Not really about Iraq being one of the fronts though, if anything the presence of foreign troops is exacerbating the situation (there). The need to resolve their problems on their own, although continued reconstruction and financial support wouldn't go amiss, we are responsible for most of the destruction after all - it seems fair we should fix it.
I think, as lots of senior British army officials have said, that we should get the troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan where they can really hunt down some terrorists. Especially now we've got the go ahead from Pakistan to attack terrorist training camps there.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-05 07:10:58)
US should withdraw and leave a peacekeeping force same with AUS and UK.
Main priority is train up Iraqi police and military to keep the country control by themselves.
Main priority is train up Iraqi police and military to keep the country control by themselves.
If I am not mistaken, the US is rebuilding the Infrastructure that the insurgents destroyed. The US intentionally avoided destroying the infrastructure to allow a quick recovery. Car bombs are destroying bridges and other infrastructure as the US tries to rebuild.|BFC|Icenflame wrote:
Unfortunately the damage is done... There is no going back yes I am a strong advocate against the Invasion, yes I might not agree with America use of over excessive force, there are many things I do not agree with. But I'd have to say that America now owes the Iraqi people a lot more than before.
In fact I believe that it is America's responsibility to rebuild the infrastructure they destroyed. At least see through the development and reconstruction. Then if they deem it necessary to pull out then they should but again if they pull out the entire country may fall into anarchy.
Well America slept in this bed.. now they gotta make it!
It already is a peace keeping force. The war in Iraq ended with the fall of Saddam, it has been a peace keeping mission ever since. If you haven't noticed, peace keeping is the hard part and requires the large numbers of troops that are there. You only have 2 choices, continue to try an calm the violence or with drawl. There is not scale back option, the country is too unstable.Machine_Madness wrote:
US should withdraw and leave a peacekeeping force same with AUS and UK.
Main priority is train up Iraqi police and military to keep the country control by themselves.
It isn't too hard to fight real terrorism. It's called immigration control, monitoring suspect activities and 'not letting people with boxcutters onto planes'. Iraq does nothing to prevent terrorism taking place in the west. Nothing whatsoever. A lot of the terror activity in the UK is entirely domestic - so Iraq does nothing to prevent that. Terror activity in the US is almost entirely at the hands of visitors - so controlling your borders and policing your country should solve that. There will always be terror. Thankfully setting oneself alight and driving a high quality vehicle into a doorway doesn't get you very far.... lollowing wrote:
It is the major front now yes, but the war wages all over the world.oug wrote:
I totally agree. But I don't know which jihad you're talking about. Who has called for a jihad, and against whom?lowing wrote:
I can explain it simply: Being in Iraq has nothing to with global terrorism. Leaving Iraq will not bring global peace or end the jihad.Oh but it is the war, in the sense that there is no bigger picture (war on terror style) of which this battle is a front.lowing wrote:
Iraq is one of the fronts now, on which this battle takes place. It is not the war.
I was under the impression jihad was called by AL-Quida. Or did I miss something
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-05 08:17:40)