Is it time to pull British troops out of Iraq?

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by marky

It was a armoured vehicle not a tank, and the tyres were on fire

I'd still put my foot down. Why where they not carring guns for self defence?
Where was the back up?

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by dezzo

I don't think the Army in Belfast have to worry about being handed over to the IRA etc if they were arrested by the PSNI.

I assumed he was referring to the petrol bombing, stone throwing etc as he said what he had seen.

[marky]

So thats it, we have 19 pages on call centres and only 18 posts on our troops in iraq, My thoughts on what is more important to the british public have now been crushed.

[Orior]

Its a British Empire thing, even though Iraq was never in the Empire, Britain has a long history of invasion, occupation, and the pulling out leaving a Civil War (Israel, Ireland, United States, India to name a few).

Britain should never have gone in in the first place. They could pull out now, or pull out in 5 years time. Either way, they keep their tradition going.

By the way, a soldier joins the army to stand in front of a machine gun at the behest of his general. Why do they not expect to get killed? Have the rules of war changed. Do they decide by playing tiddly winks now?

[marky]

People dont join the army to get shot, they join because they are proud to serve & defend there country, myself and all my brothers have served and are proud to have done so, what has happened is not war it is plain savagery

[BBKing]

The majority of Iraq is actually working very well and is getting back on it's feet

Define 'very well' and 'back on its feet'. I don't particularly define them in the context of vast amounts of reconstruction aid vanishing into the pockets of corrupt businessmen we put in charge (more than vanished in the oil for Iraq scandal). Nor in not having reliable electricity and water, or it being impossible to move around safely (the BBC had to send someone by military transport plane to Basra because they didn't have anyone on the ground and it was too dangerous to travel overland. Nor in having huge numbers of unemployment, hundreds of whom are murdered every month while looking for work, or in having a vast upsurge in criminality, including kidnapping, quite independently of terrorist activity. Nor in an oil-rich country having petrol shortages (hmm - sounds familiar). Nor in having quasi-judicial death squads taking people away and shooting them (hang on, didn't Saddam's boys do that?).

I really think that things are far, far worse there than is reported, simply because reporting is so difficult (another journalist murdered in Basra this week). It's not a new Vietnam, it's the first Iraq, which will be spoken about in 30 years as one of the great foreign policy failure of all time, in managing to make Saddam's rule look like an oasis of peace and good government.

Countries that are 'working very well' don't simultaneously have the world's largest suicide bombing campaign at the same time as the world's largest theft and the world's costliest military operation.

Originally Posted by skunk4u

After what I had seen yesterday.

Get them out.

We might as well. It looks like the Iraqis are bent on self-destruction anyway.

They won't fight the evil within, but don't mind having a go at those that are supposed to be their allies.

There was a funny line on one of the newspapers this morning about this. It said "Full Story Inside".
I had to laugh - like we'll ever hear the full story...

[Halcyon]

I think we should take the troops out. It will only lead to more deaths and suicide missions if we dont.
We need to keep a close eye on whats going on there, but we should take the troops out.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Define 'very well' and 'back on its feet'. I don't particularly define them in the context of vast amounts of reconstruction aid vanishing into the pockets of corrupt businessmen we put in charge (more than vanished in the oil for Iraq scandal). Nor in not having reliable electricity and water, or it being impossible to move around safely (the BBC had to send someone by military transport plane to Basra because they didn't have anyone on the ground and it was too dangerous to travel overland. Nor in having huge numbers of unemployment, hundreds of whom are murdered every month while looking for work, or in having a vast upsurge in criminality, including kidnapping, quite independently of terrorist activity. Nor in an oil-rich country having petrol shortages (hmm - sounds familiar). Nor in having quasi-judicial death squads taking people away and shooting them (hang on, didn't Saddam's boys do that?).

I really think that things are far, far worse there than is reported, simply because reporting is so difficult (another journalist murdered in Basra this week). It's not a new Vietnam, it's the first Iraq, which will be spoken about in 30 years as one of the great foreign policy failure of all time, in managing to make Saddam's rule look like an oasis of peace and good government.

Countries that are 'working very well' don't simultaneously have the world's largest suicide bombing campaign at the same time as the world's largest theft and the world's costliest military operation.

I'm merely pointing out that we are not seeing the whole of the story only that which the media sees fit to show us.Plus about the BBC team having to use Military transport..well so they have all through the conflict.It's called imbedding.Mind I hadn't heard that story-do you have a link?

[Seti]

I don't think Iraq will ever be stable. I wish the troops could pull out. Then I could see my friend whoose been there for 3 years.

Sian

Originally Posted by Orior

Its a British Empire thing, even though Iraq was never in the Empire, Britain has a long history of invasion, occupation, and the pulling out leaving a Civil War (Israel, Ireland, United States, India to name a few).

Britain should never have gone in in the first place. They could pull out now, or pull out in 5 years time. Either way, they keep their tradition going.

By the way, a soldier joins the army to stand in front of a machine gun at the behest of his general. Why do they not expect to get killed? Have the rules of war changed. Do they decide by playing tiddly winks now?

Actually Orior, I think you history is a little lacking here....

Britian left Isreal after the UN resolution to make Isreal a soverign nation.... There was an ongoing terrorist campaign by various Jewish terrorist organisations against the British armed forces and administration in Palastine.

Ireland.... well the formation of the Irish Republic as a soverign nation ended a terrorist campaign in Ireland... The fact that republicans continued to kill other Irishmen after the British withdrawl can hardly be laid at the feet of the British.... The Irish got their own nation, but just couldnt be happy in it....

America.... A revolution that saw the British leaving the commonwealth of states to their own devices after a series of political and military screw-ups that still boggle the mind. Again, a new nation was formed post British departure, and as far as I'm aware, the Civil War in America had bugger all to do with Britain...

India.... there was a history of political dissent in India before WW2, but the cost of Indian support of Britain during WW2 was Indian independance. The trouble post Empire was a long standing hatered between Muslims and other religious groups in the Sub-Continent.... Yes the redrawing of the maps pre and post withdrawl caused dislocation on a massive scale. But the same can be said when the map of Europe was redrawn post WW1 and WW2...

Last point.... Soldiers are paid to ''stand'' infront of machineguns at the behest of their generals... That went out the window after WW1 thankfully. Soldiers are paid to ''Kill The Enemy'' and are ordered not to die as it causes a lot of hassle for the Regiment. There are Very few things worth dying for, but lots of things worth killing for...

And its time to bring the lads home, and indite Tony Blair and the lying B*stards who got us into this cesspit of a country. Let America be the worlds policeman, there are too many problems at home to be finding more in a place we are as welcome as a fart in a car on a hot day.

[Orior]

Fair point Earl. He who writes the history determines the outcome though eh?

Originally Posted by marky

People dont join the army to get shot, they join because they are proud to serve & defend there country, myself and all my brothers have served and are proud to have done so, what has happened is not war it is plain savagery

You run the risk of be killed in a war when you join the Army. It isnt holiday camp. People may join with the best intentions but at some point the Government will send you to war and you will fight, and some will die

[punky]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

The problem is that where and when things are going well it's not so 'sexy' for the media to report that.

Funny you should say that...



Gotta love Cox & Forkum. http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000671.html

[nffc]

Should never have gone in.