Posts: 327196 Topics: 12964 LOGIN

Favourites

Most popular topics | World-issuesopen/close

Latest topics | World-issuesopen/close

 

Searchopen/close

Posts Topics

>> extended Search
 

  POST A NEW TOPIC REPLY  

Home >> World-issues >> US sets possible Time table for Pullout of Iraq

16.03.2007, 22:24 quote

ChiefOHara
ChiefOHara Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 2851 Location: Ireland, Cork, Cork
View user's profile Visit poster's website

stonecastle wrote:
ChiefOHara wrote:
Is that because all the old hospitals, old schools, old homes, old businesses and old jobs were bombed in the invasion?
The invasion itself was very brief, over in three weeks it is the insurgency war which is lasting for years.
Quote:
a 100,000 civilians dead does lead to some job positions opening up.
Again the vast majority of Iraqi dead were not killed by allied forces but by the insurgents. It is the insurgents who have brought chaos, death and destruction to Iraq. The allies are trying to rebuild the country.


The arial bombardment took its toll, most infrastructure and military targets were taken out before the invasion even commenced. So to be Honest i don't think the time involved is a major factor.

The figure of 100,000 i took from the three week invasion. There was that many dead before the occupation even began. I don't even know what the total figure of dead and casualties is at the moment, im not sure there is an accurate figure availible, but there were a 100,000 dead before this mess with the insurgents even began.

Im not trying to be smart Stone, but its gonna take the insurgents some time to catch up with that figure.

 
Back to Top

18.03.2007, 19:02 quote

Anonymous

ChiefOHara wrote:
The figure of 100,000 i took from the three week invasion.
That figure is rubbish as there was hardly any fighting. The Iraqi armed forces were queing up to surrender. Only a few of their soldiers put up a fight. It was a largely bloodless war. A couple of thousand were killed and injured by the bombing of Bagdad but that was all. The allied forces swept through Iraq largely unopposed hence they were able to declare victory within three weeks by April 12th 2003. It was only from about July 2003 onwards that a massive insurgency started across Iraq which has resulted in massive deaths.

 
Back to Top

19.03.2007, 13:31 quote

ChiefOHara
ChiefOHara Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 2851 Location: Ireland, Cork, Cork
View user's profile Visit poster's website

stonecastle wrote:
ChiefOHara wrote:
The figure of 100,000 i took from the three week invasion.
That figure is rubbish as there was hardly any fighting. The Iraqi armed forces were queing up to surrender. Only a few of their soldiers put up a fight. It was a largely bloodless war. A couple of thousand were killed and injured by the bombing of Bagdad but that was all. The allied forces swept through Iraq largely unopposed hence they were able to declare victory within three weeks by April 12th 2003. It was only from about July 2003 onwards that a massive insurgency started across Iraq which has resulted in massive deaths.


I disagree. The invasion was a joke, but the arial bombardments weren't.

There is also no such thing as a bloodless war.

 
Back to Top

19.03.2007, 17:30 quote

Anonymous

ChiefOHara wrote:
There is also no such thing as a bloodless war.
Well there was far less death and destruction in the three weeks of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 than in almost any other war in history. All would have been well if extremists inside Iraq had not taken the opportunity to first loot and ransack their own country and then to start a civil war with each other. I don't blame America, Britain or their allies for the violent aftermath. The blame for that lies squarely with the insurgents and sectarian fanatics themselves.

 
Back to Top

19.03.2007, 21:06 quote

ChiefOHara
ChiefOHara Joined: 11 Feb 2006 Posts: 2851 Location: Ireland, Cork, Cork
View user's profile Visit poster's website

stonecastle wrote:
ChiefOHara wrote:
There is also no such thing as a bloodless war.
Well there was far less death and destruction in the three weeks of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 than in almost any other war in history. All would have been well if extremists inside Iraq had not taken the opportunity to first loot and ransack their own country and then to start a civil war with each other. I don't blame America, Britain or their allies for the violent aftermath. The blame for that lies squarely with the insurgents and sectarian fanatics themselves.


The blame in my opinion lies squarely with Donald Rumsfeld. It was his choice to disband the Iraqi army which led to loads of aimless soldiers wandering the streets, his choice to disband the Iraqi civil service, his choice to prioritise the reconstruction of the oil production facilities above hospitals, electricity, infrastructure and security. Im not suprised the place tore itself apart. Rumsfeld showed about as much foresight as a blindman playing darts. The idiot should have been forced to resign years ago.

Your discounting the death and destruction wrought by the arial bombardments stonecastle. Your right in that it wasn't as bad as vietnam or world war 2 or the korean war etc. ( not as bad for the American army that is, the Iraqi civilians still took an absolute pounding ), but its still pretty bad, and whats worse is that the civil war is still only starting, its not over yet, not by a long shot.

 
Back to Top

15.05.2007, 20:52 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 419 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

ChiefOHara wrote:
Your discounting the death and destruction wrought by the arial bombardments stonecastle.
Places like Saddams' palaces took a pounding but the bombing was fairly light when compared with something like Israels' bombardment of Lebanon last year for example which didn't result in anything like 100,000 deaths. I am almost sure that the total death toll for the full three week invasion and bombing amounted to no more than 8,000. Plus of course a few thousand more injuries. But it was no where as near as bad as the first Gulf War of 1991 which I admit did result in massive casualties.

 
Back to Top

16.05.2007, 09:31 quote

Anonymous

This doesn't help anyone at all. The Democrats policy of running out of Iraq with their tails between their legs will simply pludge Iraq into civil war and allow terrorists and Iran to move in. Pulling out does nothing but hand a victory to terrorism: cause thats how they will view it. That they stood up to the US and after 4 years defeated them. then they'll get even closer to home as they'll have much more time to focus on US/UK attacks. If anyone can see the positive out of pulling out now, when the Iraqi goverment is too weak to hope to have any control without international support, please tell me. And I don't want the "our troops are dying" crap. Their soldiers, they join up knowing there's a good chance they may be killed.

 
Back to Top

06.06.2007, 19:05 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 419 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Hoshinosuna2 wrote:
This doesn't help anyone at all. The Democrats policy of running out of Iraq with their tails between their legs will simply pludge Iraq into civil war and allow terrorists and Iran to move in.
That is not true. Over the past four and a half years America and Britain have been busy training up tens of thousands of new Iraqi security forces who will take over the role of fighting and defeating the terrorist insurgents. George Bush has also stated that he will not withdraw troops until the Iraqi security forces are ready to take over the security role of the country. I think the Democrats understand this too and will only withdraw troops when it is ready to do so.

 
Back to Top

06.06.2007, 19:46 quote

myriad
myriad Joined: 01 Dec 2006 Posts: 1343 Location: United Kingdom, England, Norfolk
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Interesting that every guy in the forces I've spoken to, think we should not pull out of Iraq, and that includes one who very nearly died from 'friendly fire' from the Americans. UT Twisted Evil

 
Back to Top

29.06.2007, 09:37 quote

Anonymous

Greystone wrote:
That is not true. Over the past four and a half years America and Britain have been busy training up tens of thousands of new Iraqi security forces who will take over the role of fighting and defeating the terrorist insurgents. George Bush has also stated that he will not withdraw troops until the Iraqi security forces are ready to take over the security role of the country. I think the Democrats understand this too and will only withdraw troops when it is ready to do so.


The Iraqi forces are not ready to stand on their own. If you look at any major operation in Iraq the Iraqi's have almost no part. Why? Because they aren't prepered and half of them are corrupt, just look at the police. Trust me, I know soldiers who've been/are still out there, both American and British and they all tell me the same thing: Coalition forces are the only thing preventing Iraq falling into civil war. If nothing else, the fact Iraqi security forces are unable to hold any populated area of the country under control without the help of the UK/US should be evidence enough.

George Bush will not withdraw no, thats been obvious since day one and his veto in the senate just furthers that. However when you consider the democrats main platform, specifically Barack and Hillary's, is to pull out at once and you consider the fact those two are the front runners for the democrats presidency nod its pretty obvious they'll have to follow through on this if elected. Barack definatly will as he's been opposed to this war from the begining.

They'll be lucky if they have a stable Iraq in 10 years, let alone 2.

 
Back to Top

01.08.2007, 13:12 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 419 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

Hoshinosuna2 wrote:
They'll be lucky if they have a stable Iraq in 10 years, let alone 2.
You seen to know more about Iraq than anyone else on here. Maybe you should tell that to Brian Haw and the anti-war movement who are demanding troops be withdrawn immediatly. If they have their way then the Iraqis will suffer catastrophic death and destruction if left to fend for themselves against the terrorist insurgents.

I have a solution how about sending in United Nations peace keepers to lighten the load on Britain and America who are doing almost all of the security over there.

 
Back to Top

01.08.2007, 21:37 quote

samatron
samatron Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 218 Location: United Kingdom, England, Greater Manchester
View user's profile Visit poster's website

You can't send in the United Nations without a mandate.
On what basis should there be a mandate?
The Iraqi government aren't technically doing anything wrong!
Hosh is right, there is no way we can pull out of Iraq!
I'm very anti-war by nature, and I think US and UK should never have gone in in the first place, but it's pretty obvious that a withdrawal would lead to a huge civil war. Neighbouring countries, such as Iran will get sucked in to help supply the Shi'as. There'll be ethnic cleansing of Kurds and possibly Sunni's too. An ethnic cleansing massacre would probably prompt a mandate, but it would be too late by then!
In fact, if the US wants to go to war with Iran, the best thing they can do is to pull out of Iraq and see what Iran do next!

 
Back to Top

02.08.2007, 08:54 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 419 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

samatron wrote:
You can't send in the United Nations without a mandate.
On what basis should there be a mandate?
UN peacekeepers can be sent in at the request of the Iraqi government to defend it and the people of Iraq against terrorist insurgents. Just like they were sent into Lebanon in the 1980s for the same reasons. Infact the current guerrilla war in Iraq is very similar to what happened in Lebanon in the 1980s when there was civil war between rival Christian and Muslim militias with the people and the democratic government of Lebanon stuck in the middle getting bombed and massacred.

By the way I can't see Britain and America standing alone and keeping their troops in Iraq for more than 18 months at the most. The American congress has been demanding troops start to be withdrawn from this October. George Bush has tried to compromise by saying that troops will be withdrawn when the Iraqi government meets certain levels of competence in its ability to handle security. No way would British and American troops be kept in Iraq for another ten years.

The best solution would be to hand over security to the UN so that the security burden in Iraq could be shared between many countries instead of just the US and Britain.

 
Back to Top

02.08.2007, 10:50 quote

CMISO
CMISO Joined: 18 Jun 2007 Posts: 2127 Location: United Kingdom, England, Lincolnshire
View user's profile Visit poster's website



Coalition figures last updated 17 July 2007

Someone should tell all those other countries that they don't have any forces there. Confused
_________________

 
Back to Top

05.08.2007, 18:04 quote

Greystone
Greystone Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 419 Location: United Kingdom, England, London
View user's profile Visit poster's website

By the way the stop the war coalition are calling and having been calling for the fpast four years for immediate allied troops withdrawel from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe someone should tell them just how bad an idea that is their website is here: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

 
Back to Top
  POST A NEW TOPIC REPLY  
 
Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum