|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 10, 2004 19:28:47 GMT
I'm not sure you have your facts straight. I quote the Daily Mail from 10/4/04:
COALITION DEATH TOLL:
US: 645 killed, 501 post war.
UK: 58 killed, 25 post war.
OTHERS: 44 killed.
TOTAL: 747 killed since war began.
We only lost 58 troops. Bit different to 500. Which figures are you looking at?
Either way you are correct in stating that Iraq has been 'de-liberated' (a word for the opposite of liberation). Saddam did one thing correctly in his rule: there was a proper system of law and proper order. Even though the laws were suited to Saddam, theives and murderers etc. were executed. I agree that people lived in constant fear, but Iraq was ordered, and was not on the brink of anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 11, 2004 11:30:45 GMT
Okay, my facts come from the Daily Mirror's summary today 11/4/04: This Week US: 47 British: 1 Iraqis: 460 Other: 3
Total US&British: 1,117 Iraqis: 15,800 They may be wrong but the Mail isn't a great paper either.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 11, 2004 15:34:27 GMT
The only great reliable papers are broadsheets. The papers we are quoting must be looking at different time periods.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 11, 2004 16:29:33 GMT
Well the Mirrors is from the beginning of the war-current day.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 14, 2004 8:16:02 GMT
I think the mails was. I've thrown it now so I can't check.
On the subject of the war itself, I think the coalition troops should not withdraw, for many reasons:
Iraq would decend into civil war, and at the end of it be ruled by another tyrant. Saddam reincarnated. It would mean all the Iraqi, American and British lives lost would be in vein.
Iraq would be ruled by another tyrant so the war failed to accomplish it's purpose.
This new tyrant could easily be a supporter of Al Qaeda. Meaning that we've turned Iraq into a terrorist stronghold, where the people support the terrorists.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Apr 14, 2004 8:37:06 GMT
I believe the war is already at a loss, there is nothing being done to calm things and the death tolls are rising heavily. Sooner or later there will be call to get the troops out of there to save lives. Terrorism reigns free in Iraq now and will continue to do so unless drastic measures are taken, but what are they to be?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 14, 2004 9:19:05 GMT
There are already calls to get troops out of there, and I sympathise with that call. More than 100,000 combined reinforcements from many countries (primarily US) are being sent to Iraq to attampt to restore order. I currently agree with that decision. The only way out of this mess appears to be total control over everything, allowing for a stableish democracy to be implemented.
The additional troops will attempt to take control of the two cities where troops there have succumbed to rebellion forces. They are already surrounded. I heard the tactic is to wait for enemy ammo reserves to be depleted (no access to outside) and then invade and restore order in the cities.
If Iraq's borders are not sealed they must be immediately to prevent outside fighters from entering Iraq: They will attempt to destabilise the country.
Just to think if we hadn't invaded we wouldn't be in this mess. But we can't focus our attention on our leaders' lack of hinesight. We must deal with the current situation while there is still a chance to turn Iraq to democracy.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Apr 14, 2004 9:30:55 GMT
I think that the war will end soon for the Iraqi civillians and army. Iraq are running out of ammunition, but the Americans and British, have plenty left.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 15, 2004 17:34:58 GMT
Good news: The Japanese captives have been released! An unexpected decision by the captors. But an Italian has been executed, and other Japanese have possibly been captured.
What do we think of Japan's stance on Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Apr 20, 2004 12:43:18 GMT
Trying to get a direct opinion of the Iraq War out of anyone these days is hard enough. They won't directly support it, but they won't dircectly go againist it either. They can't do either without upsetting someone so people just say quiet and avoid the issue. We had news this week, that Spain is pulling out, they fear another attack and so they elect the man who againist the war. Now this is major blow to the coalition, but to the Anti war countries, they are heroes. Standing up to the US. Having opinins in this world is dangerous, you never know who your going to upset, or what they might do.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 20, 2004 12:49:49 GMT
In other words, the political correctness problem rears its ugly head again.
For my own part, I've always felt ambivalent about the war in Iraq, because BOTH sides of the argument are entriely legitimate. There's no doubt that the politicians in favour did it for cynical reasons, but that doesn't make the honourable argument any less genuine.
What we have to recognise is that all the unrest in Iraq is simply typical of a post-revolution scenario. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to put a stop to it, but it was ALWAYS going to happen once we'd committed to bringing down Saddam's regime.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 20, 2004 15:15:19 GMT
I guess that's true, but there is still potential for the post revolution era to cause more problems than the revolution solved. The Yanks and other forces should totally eliminate rebellion groups: they stand in the way of democracy and order. The problem is civilians. 40 were killed in a mosque bombing; currently the most major news flash.
Are the Yanks being too aggressive in eliminating opposition? Or is decisive force the only way to help Iraq in the long term? Do they have to be cruel to be kind?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Apr 22, 2004 12:32:01 GMT
Once more variables are added to this already dangerous equation. This is certainly something that the Coalition did not plan for. I guess it shows how rushed this conflict was. Two months ago, I was a staunch supporter of the war, but now I can see the situation getting dangerous. Is Iraq another Vietnam? We cannot allow something like that to happen again, but are we too far in to back out? Has our involvement in this conflict sealed Britain in a box. I cannot see Bush letting go of this, his first significant victory, his pride and joy. Yet the walls of the box are closing in, and as the field narrows, so do options. Just exactly how desperate will this situation get? And what lengths will have to be exacted by either side to ensure victory?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 22, 2004 15:41:07 GMT
Good points made there LMM. I totally agree.
There was a poll on, I think, Sky news which showed something like 89% wanted our troops out of Iraq. What problems do you think this kind of opinion will cause for Blair?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 24, 2004 10:50:36 GMT
NEWS:
Muqtader Al Sadr threatens bloodbaths at his usual hate sermons at a mosque in Najaf. That is if the Americans enter the city. He says attacks have been called off until the Americans choose to invade.
What do we think the Americans will do, and what will be the outcome of that decision?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Apr 26, 2004 11:04:51 GMT
Whatever decision they make it is likely to have violent consequences. The field is narrowing, the US had better come up with plan or they are going to lose what little the Coalition has obtained. And we lose Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 27, 2004 16:16:51 GMT
Iraq may be lost to terrorism (including possible terrorism from Qaeda), or public uprising.
I heard Bush was advised against invading Najaf, because there was too much resistance. The next move will probably to flatten the place via ariel bombardment, and then send in troops.
If we do leave the place alone however, what will be the consequences of that? Al Sadr ruling Iraq? Post your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 27, 2004 16:22:31 GMT
If we abandoned Iraq altogether, the country would descend into civil war and then it would probably fragment into its component regions.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 27, 2004 16:42:26 GMT
Wasn't it Somalia, that was run by the warlords (see the film 'Black Hawk Down', based on the conflict, but slightly exaggerated in areas)? The Yanks went in, naively thinking that it was a bunch of rabble. They ended up pulling out I think.
The same situation could be likened to Iraq in a few years time, if the Coalition pulled out without imposing proper order. Iraq would indeed descend into civil war, and radical clerics like Al Sadr would rise out of the ashes to rule their little regions.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Apr 30, 2004 16:55:57 GMT
BIG NEWS:
Some Iraqi prisoners have been tortured and humiliated by their American captors. There is currently uproar concerning the issue in the international community. The press TV channels are plastered with the pictures, as are the papers.
I am frankly disgusted at this barbarism. I thought the war was meant to end opression against Iraqis, and I also thought Americans were above this evil.
I am now fiercely against the war because it has totally backfired against it's declared purposes. I still support the principles, but it is completely going wrong.
What are your opinions on my above comments and the news? Post here.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Apr 30, 2004 17:10:55 GMT
This behaviour by the US troops is not merely cruel and degrading, it's completely illegal as it contravenes statutes on treatment of POW's in the Geneva Convention. The soldiers in question should be dishonourably dismissed from the service and face charges in an international court.
The US should also submit to UN authority in Iraq now, as it has shown an inability to maintain the discipline of its troops.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Apr 30, 2004 18:33:00 GMT
Indeed, the behaviour of US troops has out the whole coalition to shame. It just goes to show that they are in this war for one reason. Vengence on Al Qaeda. Although other members may have the right intentions, the US is leading it's counter attack. They have gone as far as they need to, it's time to stop.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 2, 2004 8:36:48 GMT
Bit of a change of heart there from someone who supported the war.
There is fresh contreversy today, as it appears the photographs might not be genuine: There are many inconsistences:
A rifle is used in the photos is labelled with an ID code that shows that it was not used by the regiment in question.
A soft hat is worn by a soldier which is intended for use in jungles, not where the regiment was.
A truck is shown with tyres that arouse questions.
And there is also something to do with the prisoners: One of them is wearing a shirt with an Iraqi flag on, which is for some reason strange. And they appear to be relaxed regarding the situation they appear to be in.
Do we think the photos are genuine?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 2, 2004 12:55:12 GMT
Those are different pictures, Will. The American ones are definitely genuine. In the last twenty hours however new ones came to light that cast a shadow on the conduct of British troops, but these new pictures have since been discredited for the reasons you have described.
Yes, I'm very doubtful indeed about the new photos' authenticity. I have a suspicion the US army, which has frequently behaved towards their UK counterparts with childish jealousy over the last twelve months, created the hoax to draw attention away from the grotesque behaviour of their own soldiers. Only a suspicion you understand, but it fits with the general pattern.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 4, 2004 7:11:25 GMT
Quite correct. I've only recently learnt that it is the British photos that are suspicious.
Your theory about the US creating them would be easily plausable: The Yanks could easily have got hold of some British gear, put it on and filmed.
|
|