Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Original Poster
#1 Old 26th Aug 2007 at 5:20 PM
Iraq
Should we be sending more troops into Iraq? So many have died there and still the British government are sending more troops in. Most of the soldiers that have went there say that it’s not a war their fighting anymore.
Here are the British soldiers to die in Iraq.
That list is very long. So why are we sending more troops in all that is doing is increasing the death toll?? :confused:



I feel deeply sorry to all that have died in Iraq trying to keep order their and to their families who have had to cope with their terrible loss.
Advertisement
#2 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 3:25 AM
The Iraq-war was wrong from the beginning. Bush has sat himself in a pretty stressful situation, by being responsible for all those people who had been killed in the war against terrorism.

But still, they can't just leave Iraq with the chaos they brought with them, so I just don't know what to answer on your question.
#3 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 3:38 AM
It is time to sit down and sign a peace treaty, whatever multi million dollar business that is entangle behind this war isn't worth sending those smiling face people to die.

STOP JOINING THE ARMY!

May the innocent life rest in peace
Original Poster
#4 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 9:22 AM
Quote: Originally posted by nixie
It is time to sit down and sign a peace treaty, whatever multi million dollar business that is entangle behind this war isn't worth sending those smiling face people to die.

STOP JOINING THE ARMY!

May the innocent life rest in peace


But if people stop joining the army then if there is a world war (hopefully not likely)
Britain will have no troops to defend us.

I understand what you mean lives are being lost but more lives will be lost if there was no army.
Top Secret Researcher
#5 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 9:25 AM
Ugh, to be honest, if Bush (and Blair) were stupid enough not to listen TO THEIR PEOPLE then.. how do you expect them to behave? Like rational people? Like people who care about other people? I'm 15 and I could have made better decissions than them. And that's saying something..
Scholar
#6 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 11:59 AM
I don't know if the Americans should send in more troops, but

Maybe they should let local countries send in their forces, and the US would help from behind the scene with their high-tech gadates and gizmo's.

It worked well in South East Asia
#7 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:12 PM
They should have gone in with more force at the beginning and got out sooner.

I don't disagree with the war. It really upsets me to see so many of our own country against it just because it comes with the word 'war'. Young men are giving their lives out there, not because they're anti-middle east, not because they support Blair. It's just to make a living, to support a family back home. They're doing a damn good job and I think we should support them for what they do. How must they be feeling out there when they read the newspapers from back home and realise they're begrudged? There was a bulletin I read on MySpace, one of the few I ever do read, it was about this and it was really touching. None of the crap about soldiers tormenting little kids or shooting people. I'm going to try find it and post it here.

I think the public need to read more from the soldiers perspective.
Scholar
#8 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Haylifer
They should have gone in with more force at the beginning and got out sooner.


No, that would just mean more dead people. What they needed was better intelligence and a back up plan.
#9 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:21 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Black_Barook!
No, that would just mean more dead people. What they needed was better intelligence and a back up plan.


That as well, but I think that the sooner they got in and got Saddam, the sooner they could get out. Because it took them so many months to find Saddam, they have to stay in longer to 'repair' the damage they'd made, i.e. the anarchy and fighting. If they doubled their troops, they'd find Saddam sooner and be able to get a government in place before the country could fall to civil war and anarchy.

I actually believe that Saddam Hussein was keeping the country under enough rule to stop the fighting. He may have been an evil dictator who used immoral methods of ruling, but it did work in keeping them non-rebellious. Now they have a wishy-washy democratic government that they aren't afraid of and they do whatever they like.
Top Secret Researcher
#10 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Black_Barook!
No, that would just mean more dead people. What they needed was better intelligence and a back up plan.


What they need to do is sort out the mess they've made and get out of there. And get the UK un-involved. Too many people are beinf killed for Bush's mistakes. And I've never heard him apologize to the British and American families who have lost their sons, dads and brothers because of his bad decision. More to the point, I've never heard him apologize to Iraq. Countless number of people have died, and we don't even know who they are. They could have been innocent but they got killed. I know it was Blair who mostly decided to follow America mindlessly, but someone should aplogize to those families.
Original Poster
#11 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:44 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Haylifer
They should have gone in with more force at the beginning and got out sooner.

I don't disagree with the war. It really upsets me to see so many of our own country against it just because it comes with the word 'war'. Young men are giving their lives out there, not because they're anti-middle east, not because they support Blair. It's just to make a living, to support a family back home. They're doing a damn good job and I think we should support them for what they do. How must they be feeling out there when they read the newspapers from back home and realise they're begrudged? There was a bulletin I read on MySpace, one of the few I ever do read, it was about this and it was really touching. None of the crap about soldiers tormenting little kids or shooting people. I'm going to try find it and post it here.

I think the public need to read more from the soldiers perspective.



They should have went in with more force to begin with.Ok people would have died but it would be less than how many people have died now.
Top Secret Researcher
#12 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 12:48 PM
I support the soldiers, they didn't chose to be sent in Iraq. They have to do their job, or they'll get put in prison or worse.. killed by the opposite side. I mean, Haylifer. You're right. They have to do that to support their families. And I'd really like to read that myspace thing.
Test Subject
#13 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 1:39 PM
It was a war we had no business starting.Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.Also it isn't our job to get rid of bad rulers.In fact he hated Bin Laden and we really had no plans on what to do with a post -Saddam Iraq.I don't know if we should stay since a civil war is happening or will soon and also we haven't done a good job with making sure the country is being run well. The fact that a good portion of Iraqis are living in poverty doesn't sound like doing a good job to me, also a lot of Iraqis are leaving and moving to Iran. Also the level come of violence hasn't come down and it seems that the longer we stay the more irritated people will become.I do think Iraq should be three countries instead of us trying to keep it all together
Forum Resident
#14 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 3:26 PM
There was never any way that we were going to "win" this war. It was a vast strategic blunder from the get-go. Former Reagan NSA Chief, General William Odom, pronounced this war "The worst foreign policy blunder in US History" a couple of years ago.

The problem isn't the way Bush executed it (too few troops, staying too long, giving no-bid contracts to cronies, etc.) The problem is that there was no way it could end in anything but militant chaos in a part of the world that we depend on for oil. Dick Cheney in '94 predicted everything that has happened, but the Dick Cheney of 2003 apparently had succumbed to delusions of grandeur. George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft published A BOOK about why they didn't invade Iraq back in 1991, and their reasons were all the problems that have come true now.

The problem is, IT'S THE MIDDLE EAST. There's hardly anything left to be said about it than that! The history of the Middle East, both short-term and long-term, is drenched in blood and sectarian violence. We had sixty years to watch the never-ending mess in Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. But George W. Bush decided now was the right time to tinker with something that he didn't understand.

What we should have done is this: Not invaded Iraq. Left our troops in Tora Bora. Cut off Osama Bin Laden's escape. Killed or captured him and all of his men. We should have brought his head back on a stick and set it up in the middle of Central Park in New York so people could spit at it. And then we should have spiffied up Afghanistan just enough to get out of there before it turned into another mess.

These morons couldn't focus on the real enemy, but, instead, created some fantasy enemy, a "war of civilizations," between Islamo-fascism and Freedom... Pure gibberish. They never focused on our real enemies, who were very few and specific.

Axis of Evil, Clash of Civlizations, War on Terror, Freedom on the March... All of that was grandiose political bullsh*t from people who couldn't focus on the real problem. Instead of living and dealing in the real world, they slipped into some fantasy world where they were in the ultimate battle between Good and Evil, like it was all Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. And oh boy, do they they bristle at any suggestion that this has all been make-believe.

And if you want to hear what the war sounds like from the soldiers on the ground, you might want to try this New York Times op/ed piece from last week. I apologize for linking to a blog for you to read it, but the real article is now behind the subscription firewall at the Times. The full article is in quotes.

Here's a recent youtube-type video (LiveLink, actually) of soldiers in Iraq telling you how they feel about the war. (Warning: some curse words.) If you search for Iraq video tags, you can find a lot of videos there and on Youtube by soldiers on the ground. They risk being punished when they post stuff like that.

I don't want to get into a big argument over who represents the REAL troops, the ones who hate the war or the ones who support it. There are soldiers who support the war. Just don't think that any of us can talk for all of them.

Oh yeah... Which political candidates are soldiers contributing to? Check out the figures . The presidential candidate getting the most money donated by soldiers is anti-war Republican, Ron Paul.
Original Poster
#15 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 4:19 PM
Doc dofus you have done your research on this lol.But I do still think that it was wrong from the begining as most of you here think.
Scholar
#16 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 4:28 PM
While we won't know for certain for another fifty years or so, I think the American invasion of Iraq has taught us an important lesson: in the age of modern war, guerrilla and partisan warfare has been perfected to the point where even the world's sole superpower, with by far the largest budget available to it in the world, is not guaranteed success over a much smaller, much less populous nation that has an understanding of guerrilla tactics.

The age of the single-nation world policeman is coming to an end. Sure, there might be a few victories, but there will be more failures--and whereas each victory will be short-lived and costly, failures will be permanent and unavoidable. International cooperation will be necessary, and that's hardly a guarantee. Want to invade Cuba? We better work on sending more exploding cigars, poisoned lip-balm and American mobsters, because even after we defeat the Cuban Armed Forces, we'll never defeat Cuban guerrillas on their own soil. Venezuela on your mind? Nothing like another disaster defeat to further emphasize our cracking belief in our own invincibility.

The United States Government versus the People of Iraq in the 21st Century is practically the ultimate David-And-Goliath match of all time--and while we may have handed a sickly David a bloody nose in the first round, it doesn't change the fact that we, Goliath, are steadily being bled to death.

The United States Government will spend the next century re-evaluating the notion that they can recreate the world in their image at the drop of the hat simply because of multi-million dollar jet aircraft and guidance technology. It's a lesson in nation's maturity, like a teenager having to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them--American will have to realize that they can't automatically dictate the fate of all mankind.

"We will pay any price, bare any burden" Kennedy said. And he might be right--we may pay any price. But we certainly won't win. Victory will only come at genocide--we will only rule a barren, empty wasteland, or nothing at all.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Lab Assistant
#17 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 5:00 PM
The problem stems not in particular from George W. but from neo-conservative supporters. For those that don't know what "neo-cons" think - they believe that US intervention can bring about regime change - using Soviet Russia as the proof that it can be done.

Now, the reality is that US intervention in Soviet Russia didn't bring about regime change - but that doesn't stop neo-cons. George W. subscribes to the neo-con viewpoint, as do quite a few of his advisors. They honestly believe that they can bring about regime change. They can't, but that didn't stop them

While Clinton was vilified for "letting 9-11 happen" through his inaction, Clinton was actually the one that had his finger on the pulse. Iraq is made up of many disparate groups, and the only thing that kept it from falling into chaos was the iron rule of Saddam Hussein. Everyone was united in fear, and no particular group had power because most of it was in the hands of Hussein. Now the opposite is true - with Shi'ite and Sunni violence while they vie for power, and the US installing rural warlords into the present government.

As for pulling out - I honestly don't know that other countries will allow that. Because the US coalition went against UN pronouncements, it will cost them far more in manoeuverability to try to get out of it. For example, the last time the US suggested a withdrawal, France reminded them of their responsibility in that area. It will cost the US a lot of political advantage (I don't know about the other countries in the coalition - only the US has made a suggestion to the UN to withdraw).

I personally think that the war is wrong, and frantically watching television at 4 am on the day after 9-11, felt some comfort that George W. stated that he was going to make surgical strikes, and take out only those who actually involved themselves in the 9-11 plot. Of course, he reneged on that policy soon after - which would have been the sensible one.
Original Poster
#18 Old 27th Aug 2007 at 5:10 PM
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has offered to apologise to Iraq if he had meddled in its affairs. The statement comes a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Maliki demanded an official apology because Mr Kouchner had suggested he resign. Meanwhile President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.He was making what was described as his first major foreign policy speech since becoming president in May. Mr Sarkozy said such a timetable would force the various Iraqi parties to accept responsibility for the country's future.

This is what I have just found out about Iraq and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Last week Mr Kouchner said the Iraqi government was "not functioning" and was quoted saying he had told the US that there was strong support in Iraq for Mr Maliki to resign and he "has got to be replaced". Mr Kouchner visited Baghdad last week to promote France's role in efforts to solve the Iraq crisis and mend relations with Washington damaged by France's opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
 
Back to top