NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is good, its about time. Your thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6380933.stm

About time. This should send shock waves through the White House and Pentagon. How long before the American government accuses the Brits of cutting and running?

The article only says that he is "expected" to announce a timetable for departure.
He's also "expected" to announce his date of departure from office.
But anywho...

"A frustrated Iraq could not be reached for comment."

Anyway, I'll believe it when it happens.

About time. This should send shock waves through the White House and Pentagon. How long before the American government accuses the Brits of cutting and running?

5...4...3...2......

Meh it's good, but I don't hold much faith for it happening within this year.

However, he said reports that all troops will have returned home by the end of 2008 was "not a fair representation of what is true at the moment".

Our correspondent said senior Whitehall sources told him that the pullout was "slightly slower" than they had expected and "if conditions worsen this process could still slow up".

Sounds like your standard noncommital commital.

About time. This should send shock waves through the White House and Pentagon. How long before the American government accuses the Brits of cutting and running?

Bring it on:D

Frankly, I view this with uncertainty. I have never been an advocate of the Iraq, nor the occupation that has followed, however, I fear withdrawal is motivated by motives that are not entirely humanitarian.

The British army has been criminally, and I use the term explicitly, underequipped and sold short in Iraq, and I fear withdrawal is simply a means by which Labour avoids a problematic continuation of interest in army equipment.

Hundreds? Out of 7000 troops? hmmm...

Also I suspect that they'll be re-assigned to Afghanistan....

Hundreds? Out of 7000 troops? hmmm...

Also I suspect that they'll be re-assigned to Afghanistan....

Naw, the Danes are killing all the insurgents with their MG42s, I wouldn't worry about it.

I wonder how much he's trying to screw Brown around with this. I bet good old Gordon would have loved nothing more than to announce that his first act as PM would be the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

British to pullout of Iraq

Premature ejaculation?

Just in time for Prince Harry to not have to go ;)

I think I'll interject an off the wall conspiracy theory.

The Brits had the pullout planned, and so they let the Royals know they'd make it seem like the Prince was going to get some good press. Then it winds up he doesn't actually have to go.

Premature ejaculation?

I was actually wondering how long it would be before a sexual reference popped up, considering the name of the thread.

I was actually wondering how long it would be before a sexual reference popped up, considering the name of the thread.


Well now you know.

Just in time for Prince Harry to not have to go ;)

I think I’ll interject an off the wall conspiracy theory.

The Brits had the pullout planned, and so they let the Royals know they’d make it seem like the Prince was going to get some good press. Then it winds up he doesn’t actually have to go.
Nah, it was never confirmed that the whole of Harry’s regiment was going to head off to Iraq anyway; an armed forces spokesman said that it might only be a small detachment. My guess is that he’d be one of the boys not going.

Anyways, we all know Harry isn’t actually a Royal... ;)

Anyways, we all know Harry isn’t actually a Royal... ;)

Cos e's fuggin' not Charles kid, right? Ee's Dodi's!

Cos e's fuggin' not Charles kid, right? Ee's Dodi's!

nah...the lads still have the royal disease....

Cos e’s fuggin’ not Charles kid, right? Ee’s Dodi’s!
No, no, no...

He’s James Hewitt’s sprog.... allegedly.


*dies mysteriously in Parisian car crash*

Cos e's fuggin' not Charles kid, right? Ee's Dodi's!

So did Dodi do Di before Di and Dodi died?

So did Dodi do Di before Di and Dodi died?
Dodi didn’t diddle Di.... did he?

Damn. This is bad news, I can see Brit-US relations falling. We started Iraq, we have to finish it. I wasn't a fan of the war but now we're there, we're there and we have to finish what we've done and leave the Iraqi's with a nation they can be proud of, even if it does cost us 10 more years.

nah...the lads still have the royal disease....

small dicks and donkey faces?

Damn. This is bad news, I can see Brit-US relations falling. We started Iraq, we have to finish it. I wasn’t a fan of the war but now we’re there, we’re there and we have to finish what we’ve done and leave the Iraqi’s with a nation they can be proud of, even if it does cost us 10 more years.
What does ‘finishing it’ actually mean? Stopping the sectarian civil war that is raging throughout Iraq?

The question is whether UK and US troops are helping the problem or adding to it.

small dicks and donkey faces?

No, you're thinking of British Republicans.

Finishing it means a stable, democratic Iraq, no matter the cost.

Damn. This is bad news, I can see Brit-US relations falling. We started Iraq, we have to finish it. I wasn't a fan of the war but now we're there, we're there and we have to finish what we've done and leave the Iraqi's with a nation they can be proud of, even if it does cost us 10 more years.

Ha ha ha; Veitnam.

Why not just flood the entire nation with troops? Clearly the solution to violence is even more violence? It's worked sooo many times in the past, and now look how long it takes us to screw a country up. I bet you we will have the blood of hundreds of Iranian citizens on our hands just weeks after we invade, and the country will be in turmoil within a couple of months.

Well, if we would have invaded NK I would say we would have. I already said I opposed the invasion and the concept of the war.

No, you’re thinking of British Republicans.

Finishing it means a stable, democratic Iraq, no matter the cost.
Why?

Or are we also dedicated to a stable, democratic North Korea, no matter the cost?

Why not just accept that we just cannot stabalise countries? The cultures in these countries is vastly different from our own, and we arn't going to be accept that some of them arn't going to want a US (or UK) imposed democracy. Look at Hamas in Palastine. I bet the US wasn't happy about that at all.

No, you're thinking of British Republicans.

Finishing it means a stable, democratic Iraq, no matter the cost.

What makes you think the Iraqi's want democracy? I guess they heard how it wasn't working for Countries that adopted it which is why so many of them take to violence . So many of them are fighting against us its obvious that a large number don't want our help.

Why not just accept that we just cannot stabalise countries? The cultures in these countries is vastly different from our own, and we arn’t going to be accept that some of them arn’t going to want a US (or UK) imposed democracy. Look at Hamas in Palastine. I bet the US wasn’t happy about that at all.
Oh yeah, the US and UK are all ready for spreading democracy, as long as the people vote in the ‘right’ government.

BTW, cool nation name, (though you've forgotten an 'e' :P) Slainte Mhath!

Damn. This is bad news, I can see Brit-US relations falling. We started Iraq, we have to finish it. I wasn't a fan of the war but now we're there, we're there and we have to finish what we've done and leave the Iraqi's with a nation they can be proud of, even if it does cost us 10 more years.

You could claim that Britain has done what it opted to do. Basra is a success, Baghdad is not. Mission accomplished, go home with heads held high.

You could claim that Britain has done what it opted to do. Basra is a success, Baghdad is not. Mission accomplished, go home with heads held high.

Well we certainly sparked alot of terrorism in Britain aswell.

What makes you think the Iraqi's want democracy? I guess they heard how it wasn't working for Countries that adopted it which is why so many of them take to violence . So many of them are fighting against us its obvious that a large number don't want our help.

And the alternative? Pulling out and leaving an anarchy? I'm damn sure most Iraqi's know what'd happen if there weren't no American and British troops in Iraq.

We shouldn't have been there in the first place. I fervently hope that we now sue the USA and the CIA for leading us in there under false pretenses. WHat is the current rate of wereguild?

Oh yeah, the US and UK are all ready for spreading democracy, as long as the people vote in the ‘right’ government.

BTW, cool nation name, (though you've forgotten an 'e' :P) Slainte Mhath!

Urg, yeah name was reserved so I had to vet it slightly...

Anyway, just to prove the world never changes heres the lyrics to a Tom Lehrer song from way back. Don't know the exact date but nevermind...

Send The Marines

What with President Johnson practicing escalatio on the Vietnamese, and then the Dominican Crisis on top of that, it has been a nervous year, and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Fortunately, in times of crisis like this, America always has its number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it:

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first - send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott;
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!

For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war;
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooh, we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

And the alternative? Pulling out and leaving an anarchy? I’m damn sure most Iraqi’s know what’d happen if there weren’t no American and British troops in Iraq.
There’d be car bombings and other massacres nearly every day, massive corruption at nearly every level, poor standards of living and health, infiltration of the police and army of sectarian militias.....

Oh, wait.

Dodi didn’t diddle Di.... did I?

*winks*

*winks*
Much better, though my lawyers have urged me to state that at no time did I diddle Di. Or Dodie. Or Camilla for that matter

The Queen Mum on he other hand, now that was a passionate affair!

I propose we install Saddam's corpse as President, cut our losses, and pull out.

And the alternative? Pulling out and leaving an anarchy? I'm damn sure most Iraqi's know what'd happen if there weren't no American and British troops in Iraq.

yeah the fucking war would end?

yeah the fucking war would end?
Didn’t you hear? The war ended in 2003. It’s been plain sailing since then.

What with all the spooge everywhere, I'd say they didn't pull out soon enough.

There’d be car bombings and other massacres nearly every day, massive corruption at nearly every level, poor standards of living and health, infiltration of the police and army of sectarian militias.....

Oh, wait.

There would be full scale violence between well-funded sectarian armies, as opposed to an insurgency. Then again, if you listen to my grandfather, he says let them go into full scale civil war - that way it will take Al Queda's attention and then they'll just kill each other off. :P

Why?

Or are we also dedicated to a stable, democratic North Korea, no matter the cost?

South Korea hasn't even been democratic for very long. We pick and choose which dictators we like. And sometimes, like with Saddam, we change our mind when they no longer seem to have any value.

Didn’t you hear? The war ended in 2003. It’s been plain sailing since then.

Mission accomplished?

http://www.whitman.edu/peer_listeners/gratitude/hooray.jpg

:D

I say all us allies pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan real quick, and throw some sand in the Americans eyes as we do so, that would indeed be funny.

About time. This should send shock waves through the White House and Pentagon. How long before the American government accuses the Brits of cutting and running?


Actually this was highly expected, it was reported in news (BBC) several times in 2006 forecasting that the British might leave by 2008. I wonder what happened to the coalition of the willing, where are they? America is alone on this one, so this is really another Vietnam. Probably that's why Bush demanded a surge in Iraq.

There would be full scale violence between well-funded sectarian armies, as opposed to an insurgency.
What the hell is insurgency? A fnord, that’s what.

Iraq is deep in civil war. Cities are now drawn along sectarian lines. The Shi’ite majority seem to be reacting against the years of oppression by a despot who favoured Sunni Muslims. Saddam’s execution, and that of his top aides, was little more than a Shi’ite lynching.

Somewhere between 300,000 and 700,000 people have died since 2003 in a county with a population of about 27,000,000. That’s about 2.5% of the population. I find it hard to fathom how ‘insurgents’, i.e, armed militias attacking Coalition forces, have managed to inflict such high fatalities.

Damn. This is bad news, I can see Brit-US relations falling. We started Iraq, we have to finish it. I wasn't a fan of the war but now we're there, we're there and we have to finish what we've done and leave the Iraqi's with a nation they can be proud of, even if it does cost us 10 more years.

And that my friends is why it's called Bushnam.

And I hope the above post is sarcastic. I would hate to think that someone actually thinks Rush and Sean are serious.

Well I think the 'Whether you agreed or not, we are in Iraq now, so lets finish the job' is irrelevant and ignorant of the fact that this was Bush's war, it was his mistakes and bad judgement that led the US into this war, he should not try to pass blame or responsibility to the Iraqis themselves, the UK or any allies, he got the US in their and the US has to get out themselves.

The other nations of the world have no responsibility for Iraq, only the US does, it should be there troops dying, their economies strained, and their political crap to clean up, no one elses. And more importantly Bush should not try and pass of responsibility of this disaster to the next administration, he should fix his own mess.

I am not advocating a US withdrawl, quite the opposite infact, what I am saying is that Bush and the US need to accept responsibility for what they have done to Iraq, and use their full resources to fix it. It's disgusting that some US politicians are saying we should threaten not to support Iraqi troops, I mean you created Iraqs problems by invading.

What the hell is insurgency? A fnord, that’s what.

Iraq is deep in civil war. Cities are now drawn along sectarian lines. The Shi’ite majority seem to be reacting against the years of oppression by a despot who favoured Sunni Muslims. Saddam’s execution, and that of his top aides, was little more than a Shi’ite lynching.

The difference between the horrendous violence now and what would happen if the United States pulled out is not comparable. You are right, the current insurgency and civil war is alone unfathonable, but it is nothing compared to what would become of Iraq if we pulled out. Or do you think that when the United States leaves everything will go back to normal?

The only thing stopping full-on conventional conflict and widespread genocide is the United States Army. Personally, I think that any progress the U.S. government states is has done with the Iraqi Army is bullshit - I don't think that an Iraqi unit will be able to operate alone until at least 2010. But, I don't think leaving will do any better. The argument of whether there should be a withdrawal or not really rests on: nationalism/jingoism/genuine concern for Iraq (rare) vs. the concern for the lives of troops who are fighting for a war which should have never taken place. In the end, what's the use of arguing? It's an argument between ideology, and the justification of the Iraq War is not in question - there wasn't any.

Regardless, back to the original point. You cannot compare an Iraq without a U.S. occupation to an Iraq under U.S. occupation and say that the violence will not be 100 times worse if the United States left. At least the United States manages to kill parts of the insurgency (although it's getting more difficult) and it manages to avoid large-scale funding of the Shia community by Iran, and the Sunni community by Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/et cetera.

Somewhere between 300,000 and 700,000 people have died since 2003 in a county with a population of about 27,000,000.

A highly contested figure, in the first place. I would say it's at the lower end of the spectrum, although surely, due to increase exponentially. How would it be better if the United States left? Your argument doesn't adress this.

The difference between the horrendous violence now and what would happen if the United States pulled out is not comparable. You are right, the current insurgency and civil war is alone unfathonable, but it is nothing compared to what would become of Iraq if we pulled out. Or do you think that when the United States leaves everything will go back to normal?

The only thing stopping full-on conventional conflict and widespread genocide is the United States Army. Personally, I think that any progress the U.S. government states is has done with the Iraqi Army is bullshit - I don't think that an Iraqi unit will be able to operate alone until at least 2010. But, I don't think leaving will do any better. The argument of whether there should be a withdrawal or not really rests on: nationalism/jingoism/genuine concern for Iraq (rare) vs. the concern for the lives of troops who are fighting for a war which should have never taken place. In the end, what's the use of arguing? It's an argument between ideology, and the justification of the Iraq War is not in question - there wasn't any.

Regardless, back to the original point. You cannot compare an Iraq without a U.S. occupation to an Iraq under U.S. occupation and say that the violence will not be 100 times worse if the United States left. At least the United States manages to kill parts of the insurgency (although it's getting more difficult) and it manages to avoid large-scale funding of the Shia community by Iran, and the Sunni community by Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/et cetera.



A highly contested figure, in the first place. I would say it's at the lower end of the spectrum, although surely, due to increase exponentially. How would it be better if the United States left? Your argument doesn't adress this.

I'm old enough to remember the same arguments about the original Nam. After the US pulled out there was blood but it turned out to be the best thing that happened to Nam in the last 100 years.

The only thing that held Bushnam together was a strongman. Under that strongman treasoners and criminals and their families and supporters were killed. Everyone else was safe. Far fewer died per year under a strongman than have died under the US, and under the US they have died at random. Streets where people could walk without fear at anytime day or night are now death traps for the innocent. Children could go to school. Bushnam was one of the most educated populations in the region. Now children aren't safe to go to school.

The worst that would happen? A short bloodbath followed with the rise of a strongman. Then peace as happened in the original Nam.

Good

I'm old enough to remember the same arguments about the original Nam. After the US pulled out there was blood but it turned out to be the best thing that happened to Nam in the last 100 years.

Unfortunately, the big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Vietnam was a war of reunion for the North Vietnamese, while Iraq is a war of division along the secterian lines.

The worst that would happen? A short bloodbath followed with the rise of a strongman. Then peace as happened in the original Nam.

Who is to guarantee this strongman is not a genocidal maniac?

<Snippity Snip>
Of course I don’t believe that once US/UK troops are gone, everything will return to normal; though normal for Iraq seems to be violence and bloodshed. My point is, if US/UK troops are doing so very little now, will another three, five, hell, more like ten years of ‘counter-insurgency’ do any good for the troubled country? What is the point of merely preventing all out war, yet accepting hundreds of thousands of fatalities?

We cannot simply accept the current situation and hope that if we ‘stay the course’ somehow things will work out in the end.

Furthermore, if the rationale is that we have got to help this country because without us full-blown civil war and genocide will prevail, i.e. humanitarian intervention, why aren’t we invading Somalia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc? Not on a practical level, I understand that even the US doesn’t have enough troops for such assaults. But morally, ethically or policy-wise, what’s the difference?

We are simply cleaning up a mess we have created. And other states who saw clearly how bad the mess would get are now incredibly reluctant to help out. This reluctance is essentially preventing a UN peacekeeping force from replacing a US/UK one; a partial solution I believe, to this problem. Even those states in close proximity to Iraq are unwilling to help out.

The violence could not be a hundred times worse, or it would kill every single Iraqi. You claim that the US/UK forces are ‘killing parts of the insurgency’, but I ask again who, or what is this fabled insurgency? Do you honestly believe all the violence in Iraq is caused by outsiders, some evil terrorist groups, hell-bent on destroying Iraq, while innocent Iraqis wail and mourn for there dead, hoping for that day when they can vote for democracy in safety?

The situation needs international and regional assistance. The sad fact is that both US and UK forces will stay in Iraq till Blair and Bush’s respective terms are up, then a new administration will pull out troops, and Iraq will become another troubled country we sometimes hear in the news.

There were British troops in Iraq? Fox news didn't tell me this!

small dicks and donkey faces?

Hemophilia...

The only thing stopping full-on conventional conflict and widespread genocide is the United States Army.

One nation show, is it? Glad to see our so-called allies have such a high opinion of their co-combatants.

One nation show, is it? Glad to see our so-called allies have such a high opinion of their co-combatants.
To be fair, it is the US's war. No other government actually cares about it except for Britain and Australia, and now the British look like they may leave and Australia has about a hundred times less troops than the USA.

To be fair, it is the US's war. No other government actually cares about it except for Britain and Australia, and now the British look like they may leave and Australia has about a hundred times less troops than the USA.

Point of fact - South Korea has about twice the amount of troops in Iraq that Australia does.

Point of fact - South Korea has about twice the amount of troops in Iraq that Australia does.
Yes, but South Korea isn't a US lackey :p

Yes, but South Korea isn't a US lackey :p

they really ought to rename the country to South Korean Republic of Samsung...

The US can take care of itself.

The US can take care of itself.

Yeah we can, but the Iraqi "Democracy" we set up sure as hell can't.

I say we give Iraq to Iran and let them deal with the problem.

1. Can we actually believe anything Tony Blair says?

2. Is he planning to take them out of Iraq so he has enough troops to send into Iran when George wants him to?

and it is confirmed!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-grateful-but-british-exit-a-blow-for-bush/2007/02/21/1171733844859.html

The staunchest of America's allies, Britain, will withdraw its 7100 troops from Iraq, the White House has confirmed.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was expected to announce last night London time that up to 1500 troops will return home in coming months and up to 3000 by the end of the year. The last of Britain's troops in Iraq are expected to be home by the end of next year.

Mr Blair told US President George Bush of the decision by telephone early on Tuesday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

"President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad," Mr Johndroe said. "The President is grateful for the support of the British forces in the past and into the future."

me, I'm happy.
Fuck it, I would rather see my taxes pay for important stuff not Shrub's half assed attempt to prove he doesn't have a small dick.