The Brits are pulling out of Iraq

[Kaftan Barlast]

So, it's out in the open: The Brits hate freedom and are pulling out of Iraq in order to drink tea and eat buttered scones. Rumours speak of cucumber sandwiches and cricket a plenty.

 

 

Basra base withdrawal nears end

 

British troops in Iraq have almost completed their withdrawal from their last remaining base in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

The 550 soldiers are handing the palace over to Iraqi control and joining the remaining 5,000 troops at the last British base near Basra Airport.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6975375.stm

Edited September 3, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Fionavar]

..checks argumentative & inflammatory meter ...

 

/warning rhetorically offered

[Walsingham]

I'll warrant it looks bad, but we've been planning that pullout since autumn 2004! The British people for some reason are more supportive of our involvement in Afghanistan.

 

Nonetheless, it feels bad to back out on you chaps.

[Sand]

What does hating freedom and letting the Iraqis have the freedom to decide their own fate have anything to do with each other, Kaft? We should pull out to. After all, we only invaded Iraq based on the Bush Administration's lies about WMDs and Al Qaeda links.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Wait a sec... The Brits eat Cucumber Sanwiches? EEWWW. I could almost forgive the warm beer but that?

 

But seriously, they are only pulling out of Basra. Not out of Iraq all together. But I expect that is beginning to happen too. Next month the US Commander Gen Patreus is supposed to reccomend force reductions as the US and British forces begins to assume an advisory role. It is almost over.

[Sand]

We need complete and total pull out of Iraq and focus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11. Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I just see it as proof, that we understood what we were doing better than the US forces in Iraq, we're pulling out, but were still there to support the iraqi's in the area. Its simple, we came, we saw, we kicked alot of ass.

 

We should have never gone into iraq, but we did, and we're done.

 

But then again, I reckon its down to the fact that the Americans will be pushing at Iran from the Iraqi front, and we'll be supporting on the Afgan front.

 

DOWN WITH ISLAMIC EXTREMEISM!

 

DOWN WITH AXIS OF EVIL!

 

Next stop Iran, then North Korea!

 

WOOO!

 

</Sarcasam off>

Edited September 3, 2007 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[Azarkon]

A potentially wise move, if Bush plans to strike Iran.

[Sand]

The problem with this is that we are using the army to occupy and police a foreign country. That is stupid and waste of resources. Our military should be used as a military force and not a police force. They are to go in, hit the targets and kill people, then leave. Go in, do the job, then leave. It is unfortunate that our idiot president failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam and Korea.

 

If we do have a way with Iran it needs to be a full scale war in which we use the full scale of our military might, short of nuclear weapons and if they launch nukes then so should we. Once the job is done, we leave.

[WITHTEETH]

The Project For The New American Century is nearly complete! We will be the center of the earth, and soon the UNIVERSE!!! Thanks to our great planning of keeping the middle east a wreck so we can suck up there resources.

 

Anybody watch George Bush give the world a history lesson on Vietnam by the way? He basically said that the lesson of Vietnam was the dangers of backing out of a war. I thought Vietnam warned that megalomaniac leaders with power need to really weigh the consequences of war.

 

Then again

knew it was going to be a quagmire the whole time strangely. He knew it was going to cause the middle east chaos, but the chaos gave us more oil, and the Bush Administration controls the puppet government too. Why would we leave now and give up all the oil we've worked so hard to control?

 

Why did the Bush administration start a PRE EMPTIVE war?

No WMD's

A aluminum tube thats not fit for Uranium

A Vast Iraq Inspection for WMD's that found NOTHING

Chemicals that have expired since the early nineties.

A Plane that sprayed chemicals in the gulf war that since has been destroyed during previous inspections.

A false plagiarized document of connection to Iraq and Africa for uranium.

A false connection of al queda of Zarqowie being in Iraq for terrorism reasons. He went for the hospital in Northern Iraq.

Zip Zilch Nadda.

 

Nothing stopped the Bush Administrations decision to not invade Iraq. Apparently people even voted him back in to office.

 

Should we leave or stay? We should LEAVE! set up a international peace keeping coalition there and get our troops the heck out! The neocons created a complete mess, there foreign policy is violence, there domestic policy is tax cuts to the rich, break up unions.

 

... or we could stay and fight the rebel civilians who hate us for taking their oil, creating violence, and destroying their security, leaving them without electricity, their children haven't even gone to school in 2 years. Its going to be really screwed up if we start taxing their tea!!!

Edited September 3, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Hildegard]

I know this is a bit off topic and to some old stuff, but anyways...here it is... Mr.Chaney: Why the US shouldn't go into Bagdad and invade entire Iraq

 

 

 

In short words from politicians, and especially bastards like ****, are always coherent with the current self interests of the the small group they're actually representing, the military industrial complex and the oil companies, etc., not the actual truth and the real state on the ground and facts behind the whole agenda. In wars, the truth is the first casualty.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

What does hating freedom and letting the Iraqis have the freedom to decide their own fate have anything to do with each other, Kaft? We should pull out to. After all, we only invaded Iraq based on the Bush Administration's lies about WMDs and Al Qaeda links.

 

Since we never seem to get anywhere on this topic, I may as well revel in it and begin with Sand. In fact, call me Bill Murray from now on.

 

The Iraqis are deciding their own fate right now. They had a pretty good stab at a free election and are now governed by their democratically elected government. I'll say that again, because it seems to escape the cheap seats. The Iraqis voted in their own representatives, and at no point have those representatives asked us to leave. The people who want us out do so on the authority of the balaclava and rifle, nothing more.

 

I'll say again that abandoning a country, indeed abandoning an entire region, over a point of order in the circumstances leading up to the current trouble is nothing short of infantile. We face a situation now with real people. Do you think it is going to be of any comfort to anyone on the ground if we say "Hey ho, chaps, never mind the outbreak of civil war, genocide, ethnic cleasing, and the partition of your country between Iran, Turkey, and Syria. If you think about it we should never have gone in in the first place. Ta ta."

 

We're in a very sticky situation at present and finger pointing, as usual, gets us nowhere.

 

Since we've become serious now, I'll add that I am sorry that out troops are pulling out, as an obvious component of a general withdrawal. As you know I have many friends in HM Forces and they're none too proud of it either.

[Walsingham]

More context:

 

A survey shows 2/3rds of British public believe we are losing the war in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6976637.stm

 

This contrasts with the view of soldiers of all ranks coming back who believe they are being undermined at home, rather than in country. They believe not enough is being done to tackle foreign support of the insurgents, and just generally get very irate about the total ignorance of the public! As I said above, there is a great feeling of shame at leaving in the way we are, after so much effort. Many have sevred multiple stints in the country, and many of teh officers also served in the Balkans. They know what could be coming, despite the years of effort to avoid it.

[Dark_Raven]

Just like those Brits, when the going gets tuff, they get going. My how the mighty empire has fallen.

 

Not that I disagree, we need to take our asses out of that Middle East version of Vietnam.

 

The British people for some reason are more supportive of our involvement in Afghanistan.

Probably because they had their asses handed to them back in England's imperial days. One country they could not conquer back then.

[Laozi]

Leaving Iraq is a totally different animal then pulling out of Vietnam. Drawing a parallel is a pretty tedious exercise in ignorance.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Laozi

[taks]

baa baa withteeth have you any wool...

 

taks

[Sand]

Since we never seem to get anywhere on this topic, I may as well revel in it and begin with Sand. In fact, call me Bill Murray from now on.

 

The Iraqis are deciding their own fate right now. They had a pretty good stab at a free election and are now governed by their democratically elected government. I'll say that again, because it seems to escape the cheap seats. The Iraqis voted in their own representatives, and at no point have those representatives asked us to leave. The people who want us out do so on the authority of the balaclava and rifle, nothing more.

 

Its not a matter of them wanting us to stay or leave, but the reasons why we went in there in the first place. Yes, its nice that the Iraqis now have an elected government but the US only really cares if that elected government is pro-US. Our administration would rather have a Pro-US dictatorship than a Anti-US democratically elected government which shows the hipocrisy. We went there on false pretenses, on lies, and that will never change no mater how much you gloss it up with PR.

 

I'll say again that abandoning a country, indeed abandoning an entire region, over a point of order in the circumstances leading up to the current trouble is nothing short of infantile. We face a situation now with real people. Do you think it is going to be of any comfort to anyone on the ground if we say "Hey ho, chaps, never mind the outbreak of civil war, genocide, ethnic cleasing, and the partition of your country between Iran, Turkey, and Syria. If you think about it we should never have gone in in the first place. Ta ta."

 

Not my problem. It shouldn't be our government's problem either. The Bush Administration messed it all up. WHy the hell should the US people have to pay for his mistakes? Why should we tie up our resources, in manpower and capital for Bush's little **** up? That is one of the reasons I am looking forward to the next election. We will be getting rid of Bush and with any luck a Democrat will be president. Then, I hope, we can put our military to use as it should be. AS A FREAKING MILITARY and not a police force.

 

We're in a very sticky situation at present and finger pointing, as usual, gets us nowhere.

 

Since we've become serious now, I'll add that I am sorry that out troops are pulling out, as an obvious component of a general withdrawal. As you know I have many friends in HM Forces and they're none too proud of it either.

 

Yes, it is a sticky situation and the best way to deal with it is to clean our hands from it and hopefully learn from this mistake. I hope next time this sort of crap happens we learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. We go in, do the objectives, then immediately pull out.

[Walsingham]

Sand, you are truly suggesting that if you were decision maker (and since you live in a democracy you are a decision maker) you would cheerfully abandon the entire country to disaster? As a human being I put it to you that you must be on just about the lowest possible rung, bereft of either compassion, honour and even common sense.

[Tigranes]

It's not that Sand is a despicable human being (for this, anyway): it's just that for him, the nation is such a powerful unit of categorisation that he divvies up many things in the world by laws of national sovereignty and integrity. But the nation is an artificial conception to begin with...

[WITHTEETH]

baa baa withteeth have you any wool...

 

taks

Whats up Taks.

Edited September 4, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Landiskan]

Perhaps the thought of friendly fire incidents encourages the Brits to limit... the threat. No offence to American pilots who I'm sure are very well trained and skilled.

[Azarkon]

It's not that Sand is a despicable human being (for this, anyway): it's just that for him, the nation is such a powerful unit of categorisation that he divvies up many things in the world by laws of national sovereignty and integrity. But the nation is an artificial conception to begin with...

 

Artificial, yes; arbitrary, no. What we're seeing in present day Iraq is precisely the fallout from a semi-arbitrary assignment of different ethnic groups into a single nation in which they do not belong. As much as the modern West might hate to admit it, tribalism runs deep in the human instinct, and the world does not operate by the simple laws of a moral commonwealth. In fact, nation, tribe, and family play a huge factor in the direction of people's actions, so much so that many are fully willing to and capable of doing so-called "universal" evil in pursuit of "local" good - that is, acts that would be considered wrong if taken in a general context, but which can be construed as good when defined with respect to the interests of a group.

 

This is why sovereignty and national integrity are important things to consider when deciding whether to engage in "foreign humanitarian missions." You simply can't treat people as if national borders and ethnic divides did not exist - because people's moral compasses are defined along those lines. Trying to force the Iraqis into one nation, to get along with each other, might seem a good thing to do - but it ignores the fact that in many of their eyes, what you're actually doing is violating their ethnic solidarity, and that's why they resort to sectarian violence.

[Guard Dog]

Artificial, yes; arbitrary, no. What we're seeing in present day Iraq is precisely the fallout from a semi-arbitrary assignment of different ethnic groups into a single nation in which they do not belong. As much as the modern West might hate to admit it, tribalism runs deep in the human instinct, and the world does not operate by the simple laws of a moral commonwealth. In fact, nation, tribe, and family play a huge factor in the direction of people's actions, so much so that many are fully willing to and capable of doing so-called "universal" evil in pursuit of "local" good - that is, acts that would be considered wrong if taken in a general context, but which can be construed as good when defined with respect to the interests of a group.

 

This is why sovereignty and national integrity are important things to consider when deciding whether to engage in "foreign humanitarian missions." You simply can't treat people as if national borders and ethnic divides did not exist - because people's moral compasses are defined along those lines. Trying to force the Iraqis into one nation, to get along with each other, might seem a good thing to do - but it ignores the fact that in many of their eyes, what you're actually doing is violating their ethnic solidarity, and that's why they resort to sectarian violence.

 

Azarkon that was the most thoughtful and intelligent post I've read on this board in a long time. And I agree 100%. The smart thing to have done (and I've said this before) would have been to break Iraq into three separate countries such that would each encapsulate the three distinct ethnic/religious groups. Iraq was itself a construct of a post WWI mandate granting lands from the defeated Ottoman Empire to Britain. Only strong military force has kept it whole, first the British, then the Hashemites, then Saddam. As a rule, nation states with divided ethnic/language/religious/ loyalties and no real (or contrived) national identity do not survive on their own accord. Look at what happened after the USSR fell.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

Sand, you are truly suggesting that if you were decision maker (and since you live in a democracy you are a decision maker) you would cheerfully abandon the entire country to disaster? As a human being I put it to you that you must be on just about the lowest possible rung, bereft of either compassion, honour and even common sense.

 

If I was leading this country I wouldn't have invaded Iraq to cause this situation in the first place. I firmly believe that a nation, and people, needs to stand on its own two feet and take on the threats, either internal or external, on its own. If it is meant to survive, it will prevail. If not, then it won't. I would help as much as possible, don't get me wrong, but I would not help a country to a point that puts my own in risk, either economically or militarily.

[Walsingham]

Sand, you are truly suggesting that if you were decision maker (and since you live in a democracy you are a decision maker) you would cheerfully abandon the entire country to disaster? As a human being I put it to you that you must be on just about the lowest possible rung, bereft of either compassion, honour and even common sense.

 

If I was leading this country I wouldn't have invaded Iraq to cause this situation in the first place. I firmly believe that a nation, and people, needs to stand on its own two feet and take on the threats, either internal or external, on its own. If it is meant to survive, it will prevail. If not, then it won't. I would help as much as possible, don't get me wrong, but I would not help a country to a point that puts my own in risk, either economically or militarily.

 

And if I'd been in charge we'd have prepared differently for the post-war situation and listened to the generals who suggested we shouldn't disband the Iraqi Army. All of which isn't worth a brass dollar. This isn't an exercise in flattering your peculiar drive to achieve total isolation from everything except earwigs. This is the centre of gravity of the next 100 years. Globally and locally.

 

As for helping only in as much as you are not cost anything or put at risk. Drivel.

 

1. You are always at risk, and every action and inaction has a cost. Your proposed line of action would reduce the United States to a fragmented mess of two-bit states, bereft of influence, or protection from exploitation by other less bizarre strategic minds.

 

2. I put it to you that you are talking like the farisee as described by the esteemed Martin Luther King. You are asking 'If I help Iraq what will happen to me." I've already made clear my prediction on that. But I also put it to you, as Dr King did, that the more important question is if we do NOT help Iraq what will happen to them?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agUA-htonQ