Liverpool FC Forum

by **skipper** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:37 pm

More and more troops are dying everyday. Civilians are dying too. Bush is an idiot for invading Iraq in the first place. I say we try to find a way to pull allied troops out of there.

by **andy_g** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:47 pm

helicopters may come in handy

by **Ciggy** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:09 am

skipper wrote:More and more troops are dying everyday. Civilians are dying too. Bush is an idiot for invading Iraq in the first place. I say we try to find a way to pull allied troops out of there.

Skipper no doubt about it that the war in Iraq was a big mistake, and none of us want our soldiers there, but it is out of our hands.
There is nothing we can do to stop Bush and Blair and they will not pull our troops out who do not want to be there

And if anything happens to Musharaf the Pakistani government expect Bush to bomb there also, we are fighting a losing battle what we as the general public will never win.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:30 am

If we pull out, the nob heads will resurface and take the country over again. Yes people are being killed, but the scenes would be far worse if the "Sod-him" lot get their hands on the controls again.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:00 am

the mistake wouldve been to allow saddam to stay in power. if you ask ordinary iraqi's, i bet they are glad that britain and the usa were willing to help them. its a case where the minority are again spoiling the majority.

the terrorists would be more abundent if saddam was still in power, imo

by **LFC #1** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:16 am

No matter what your opinion is on whether they should of gone or not in the first place, they now have to stay until the job is done.

the US, Australia, UK all committed to this war and have to make sure they make Iraq as safe as possible. If they pulled out now, depsite their being a governemnt appointed you woudl be running the risk of the insurgents turning Iraq into an anarchy-like state and civil war woukld probabaly not be far around the corner.

This may mean that troops are going to have to be their for years to come, but if they pull out too soon you run the risk of another totalitarian regime taking hold.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:17 am

LFC #1 wrote:No matter what your opinion is on whether they should of gone or not in the first place, they now have to stay until the job is done.

the US, Australia, UK all committed to this war and have to make sure they make Iraq as safe as possible. If they pulled out now, depsite their being a governemnt appointed you woudl be running the risk of the insurgents turning Iraq into an anarchy-like state and civil war woukld probabaly not be far around the corner.

This may mean that troops are going to have to be their for years to come, but if they pull out too soon you run the risk of another totalitarian regime taking hold.

who is that rant directed at lfc#1?

by **LFC #1** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:29 am

no-one, just voicing an opinion.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:36 am

well, its a good post. it is important for the real iraqi's that they can eventually have a country which is safe. some folk will moan that it is worse now, but thats bollox, saddam was responsible for countless murders, beatings, torture, and imprisonment without trial to folk who may have walked on the wrong side of the road.

he even murdered his brother in law, after tricking him to coming back to iraq from jordan, saying everything will be alright.

anyone, who says saddam should have stayed in power is dellusional

by **andy_g** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:44 am

obviously saddamm and his regime being in power in iraq was a major threat to many many people, not just the politicians in the west, and he had to be removed. however, there were a number of ways to do this. maybe as a last resort the military strikes would have been the only way but i think it was rushed into farr too quickly.

the political attempts were almost non existant and the eagerness too go straight into full scale military assault was unbelievable, mostly against public opinion and without a greatt deal of thought. the americans and british obviously believed we could just roll in there, unseat or kill saddam and the people of iraq would all be thankful and line the streets with rose petals for our glorious victory parade.

how f*cking wrong and how f*cking stupid. just proves there is no such thing as military intelligence. people say that this is not another vietnam, maybe not yet but its getting very close. there is no sign of any kind of resolution, the country is in chaos and the number of willing suicide bombers and guerilla fighters is not going to dry up any time soon.

and now we're in a no win situation. if the military puls out it will be a blood bath as variouos factions fight for power. if the military stays in it continues being a blood bath. tragic.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:04 am

you make some valid points andy, and im sure using the cover story of WMD's was a little wrong. perhaps if they'd have gone in , in 1991, then they would have found stockpiles.

nonetheless, as egypts ministers point out, they have had terrorist attacks spanning some 25 years, so terrorism is not new. suicide bombings started when a 17yr old blew himself up during the iran/iraq war.

what is annoying is that some say that terrorism has entered the UK coz solely due to the war in Iraq. these extremists wouldve targetted the UK anyway, as they despise the way of life we have, and that includes any muslims who dont think the same way as the terrorists.

so their is no easy solution. we have to stand firm tho'

by **andy_g** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:14 am

fundamentalist terrorism (there are of course other kinds but this is what we're talking about now) has been going against us, the US and others for b.loody ages as you say. the attacks on the WTC were not in response to the 'war on terrorism' directly, of course, and its probably safe to say that there would have been further sporadic attacks if the west had stayed out of afghanistan and iraq and never started this campaign.

but the intensity and fervour of terrorist attacks and anti west rhetoric is definitely fuelled by the 'crusaders' actions, invasions and occupation of islamic territories. its not that the war on terrorism is the cause of all terrorism but its definitely escalated it.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:29 am

current trends suggest that is the case, but, as you are fully aware, and have a grasp on this situation andy, we have nothing to compare it with. What i mean is, if we hadnt gone in, would we be in the position we are now. THAT is a difficult one to call i feel.

the attacks in egypt (sharm, valley of the queens, cairo etc) have been going on long before our crusader actions, they have not let up. i have spent a lot of time in egypt living there, and i can say that foreigners were being killed at an alarming rate for no apparent excuse. much of the deaths i witnessed were in the early eighties, and never broke the news. these were done by local and internatinal terrorists who despise our way of life!! but your points andy are valid and should not be ignored

by **andy_g** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:40 am

i agree with you completely judge (first time for everything an' all that

). but i'm positive that the increased amount of terrorist activity and hostility is a direct result of the 'war on terrorism'. but, true, its easy to say with hindsight.

by **Judge** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 am

cheers andy i feel so much better for that

hindsight - yes indeed

Liverpool FC Forum

Iraq - We have to pull out.

Who is online