Britain should pull out of Iraq soon - head of British army

[HampshireSeagulls]

can you explain this bit further HS ?

The Lancet fails to make clear that deaths have occured through additional reasons - such as Shi'ite/Sunni fighting, unallocated executions from within Iraq, what appears to be a rising trend in poisoning water supplies again (one of Saddam's fave tricks), and insurgents actually killed by coalition forces. It includes those killed by suicide bombs (vehicular and personal), and through the control of local hospitals and medical supplies by various internal warring factions. It's not simply as easy as pinning it all on Tony Bliar and George the Ape, although some sources would have it that way, but similarly it can be argued that a large percentage of these deaths would not have occured if we had not been lied to, and invaded Iraq, in the first place. And the only reason we were "invited in at the express request of the Iraqi government" - is because we put it there in the first place.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Let's remember that the Conservatives, including Cameron and his mob, backed the war in Iraq, so to blame Blair personally is not fair.

Secondly, the deposition of Saddam was always going to lead to a bloodbath because of the ethnic tensions existing between Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. The country was united only by fear of the Saddam regime.

It is clear that we and the Americans need to get out of there as soon as possible. If they want a civil war then that is their problem, not ours.

We want out. However, Bliar must take the blame in that he was the one who invoked the parliamentary prerogative to send the troops in. The only reason the other parties got in line was to produce a united front to the public (except the one or two firebrands that actually, people should have listened to!).

We felt uneasy during the approach phase before the invasion started, and Channel 4 had a documentary team onboard who actually taped guys who were saying that they felt this was wrong, that there was no evidence, and that we felt that we should not have been doing what we were about to do. But, job to do, wages to pick up, it was done. Don't confuse the feelings of the Armed Forces with the false wars that they have to take part in - it's the politicians that should always shoulder the blame. Hate the war, not the warriors.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Don't confuse the feelings of the Armed Forces with the false wars that they have to take part in - it's the politicians that should always shoulder the blame. Hate the war, not the warriors.

 

[Cocksucker Blue]

Given we have now slaughtered 1 in 40 civilians, give it a few more months and there place will be totally safe, as there wont be anyone left to be an insurgent.

 

[NMH]

I'm afraid that said leader, has basically pussied out of his stance. He was on the box this a.m. backsliding and saying "I meant, we should only get out once the job is finished".

So, the wibbly wobbly 'leader' is as flim-flam as ever. Nice uniform Mr General f***ing wanker, now f*** off and join Bush and his sort.

 

[Beach Hut]

No dissin any army type people but the world would be a better place if we had no wars.

Pointless war I am afraid

 

[perseus]

Babylon



I did not know what "angry" to put !

 

[London Irish]

similarly it can be argued that a large percentage of these deaths would not have occured if we had not been lied to, and invaded Iraq, in the first place. And the only reason we were "invited in at the express request of the Iraqi government" - is because we put it there in the first place.

That's the point. Similarly those of us who were against invasion freely have to admit that Saddam would have carried on killing people, but we are talking much, much smaller numbers than were slaughtered in these past 3 years. And getting rid of him would have been a slow process, but it could have happened in his dotage, which was approaching.

Interesting front page in the Independent this morning (Saturday) which prints a lot of comments from soldiers' messageboards, of which you will no doubt be familar.

 

[NMH]

That's the point. Similarly those of us who were against invasion freely have to admit that Saddam would have carried on killing people, but we are talking much, much smaller numbers than were slaughtered in these past 3 years. And getting rid of him would have been a slow process, but it could have happened in his dotage, which was approaching.

Interesting front page in the Independent this morning (Saturday) which prints a lot of comments from soldiers' messageboards, of which you will no doubt be familar.

Saddam kept a balance in that country that would otherwise be nigh-impossible with those religious and social factions within. The Kurds, unwilling to integrate, challenged the only capable leadership, and, let's face it, got the trouble they asked for. They could just as easily be our enemies except it suits our leaders' agenda to be allies for this particular week. What did the US do when Saddam was anihilating Kurds? Nothing, except maybe nodding approval at the apparent necessity of it and supplying further weaponry.

Respect is due to Saddam the evil monster, our ex-allie, our ex-friend, the bloke our side put in power, for the very fact that he kept a balance in that area in the only way possible, by fear, respect, decisive action and power against anyone who didn't fall in line with that balance. Not to mention the common enemy that was (religious-zealot-filled) Iran, that was comfortably kept occupied in a border war for about 10 years.

The STENCH of hypocricy, I don't know how anyone can still breathe for thinking about our side's history with Saddam and Iraq.

People who keep on about what a nasty leader Saddam was, where were they when he was our allie, and how come they believe everything they are told now? Because it suits this year's cause, and propaganda works for them just like it did for Hitler's Germans.
There won't be another leader there who can simply control the factions within, and they have a concurrent civil war raging while we are there fending off insurgents who want to have it be run their way.


The US leadership have screwed up Iraq, created a nuclear armament in N.Korea by choosing them as an enemy, (and may also have done with Iran, except their leadership might actually be too sensible to simply react to everything Bush says) and have no idea how to stop the runaway trains they keep letting loose.
The US get dead nervous about any country having nuclear anything, even power stations - though they have it, and have used it in anger.

I agree that the enemies have to be quoshed or kept in check, but the US government are so screwing things up that I wonder how and if it can ever be peaceful again in our lifetimes.