British troops killed in missile attack

[Guest alex]

On one hand you're advocating leaving Iraq, on the other you're saying much stronger action is needed to rid the world of terror. Naive and unrealistic.

Edited May 12, 2006 by alex

[Renton 17767]

What pisses me off is that the mess Iraq is now in (and surely no-one can deny it is quite literally a bloody mess) was utterly predictable. Now how come an average person who spends too much time on the internet at work can predict this but apparently the governments of the UK and US can't?

 

Iraq has ceased to exist as a viable country, the only thing that could hold it together was a murderous dictator. Although he was a tyrant, he actually had his uses to the west and was never going to be a threat. We have no exit strategy now though, and hundreds of allied troops will die along with thousands of civilians. It's an absolute shambles.

 

Without the benefit of hindsight I also predict going into Iran would be catastrophic.

[LeazesMag 0]

On one hand you're advocating leaving Iraq, on the other you're saying much stronger action is needed to rid the world of terror. Naive and unrealistic.

135322[/snapback]

 

What about the rest of the post ? Or are you about to just answer the bits that suit you like others on here ?

 

It is certainly not naive to suggest we do something about it? It's unrealistic to suggest we should have left it alone ie "no threat to us so it will hopefully go away".

 

The point about Iraq is we got rid of Saddam and they have set up their own govt, if they want us to continue or not, is now up to them to decide. If they want us to continue, then stay and stop pussy footing around with these cunts that are hindering us and the country from re-building itself.

 

When you answer, don't forget the rest of the earlier post you didn't answer, seeing as I answered you. Thanks.

[LeazesMag 0]

What pisses me off is that the mess Iraq is now in (and surely no-one can deny it is quite literally a bloody mess) was utterly predictable. Now how come an average person who spends too much time on the internet at work can predict this but apparently the governments of the UK and US can't?

 

Iraq has ceased to exist as a viable country, the only thing that could hold it together was a murderous dictator. Although he was a tyrant, he actually had his uses to the west and was never going to be a threat. We have no exit strategy now though, and hundreds of allied troops will die along with thousands of civilians. It's an absolute shambles.

 

Without the benefit of hindsight I also predict going into Iran would be catastrophic.

135336[/snapback]

 

I agree. But if you don't match fire with fire...what will they end up being capable of ?

[Renton 17767]

What pisses me off is that the mess Iraq is now in (and surely no-one can deny it is quite literally a bloody mess) was utterly predictable. Now how come an average person who spends too much time on the internet at work can predict this but apparently the governments of the UK and US can't?

 

Iraq has ceased to exist as a viable country, the only thing that could hold it together was a murderous dictator. Although he was a tyrant, he actually had his uses to the west and was never going to be a threat. We have no exit strategy now though, and hundreds of allied troops will die along with thousands of civilians. It's an absolute shambles.

 

Without the benefit of hindsight I also predict going into Iran would be catastrophic.

135336[/snapback]

 

I agree. But if you don't match fire with fire...what will they end up being capable of ?

135338[/snapback]

 

The situation in Iran is worrying, I honestly have no idea what the best solution is. However, Saddam Hussein was of no threat to us or Israel whatsoever. The press get obsessed about his imminent development of chemical and biological weapons, but they are not used by developed countries for one good reason. They don't work. Nor did he have the technology to deliver them.

 

So tell me Leazes, what was the real motive for going into Iraq if it wasn't self preservation?

[Guest alex]

In all honesty Leazes, I can't be arsed, it's been done to death. I doubt Iran will nuke Israel anytime soon though (not that I support their government's views in any way) unless they want the same treatment back from Israel ten times over. Would you advocate invading Iran out of interest?

[LeazesMag 0]

If we don't invade Iran, the threat won't go away, but if we do we are starting a serious conflict. If we wait for Iran to build up its arms, we will have a serious conflict.

 

If Iraq broke the terms of the ceasefire then that is a reason to go in and finish the job off. It should have been done the first time, that was a major boob. He was just taking the piss for years and would have continued to do so. By not allowing the inspectors to do their job he was fuelling the theory that he was developing nuclear technology, however small. It is possible he was developing them, then destroyed them when it became obvious we were going to go back in. We will never know, well someone will know, but we won't find out.

 

As Iraq had used chemical weapons before, the threat of using them again must have been very real. There must have been very real proof that they had chemical weapons, they must have done. Why wouldn't they ?

 

If Iraq HAD them, I don't think there is any doubt that other countries will also have them.

 

All the middle eastern countries are a potential threat, simply because they would all like to take out Israel, and us [the west, but primarily us and the Americans] out, I don't think you can doubt that. So we surely aren't going to allow them to get into that position ?

 

We can't go into every country that we think is a threat. Iraq provoked the response by invading Kuwait originally. If anyone else invades a country would we not have to do the same thing again ?

 

It takes a very brave decision to start these things, but common sense tells you that you just can't wait until they pose a bigger threat than now. Yet you can't invade for no reason either. Bugger eh ? Worrying whatever way you go.

 

And what about the Chinese and the North Koreans .....

[Rob W 0]

I was talking to a guy from Kroll Associates, the yankee security specialists, earlier this year about Iraq - don't ask cos I won't tell

 

His view was that once the western troops pulled out it would settle down in 3-5 years to be like Columbia

 

some places would be fine to visit, some would be 100% dangerous and some would be variable and the folk on the ground would know which were which at any time

 

not wonderfull but not the end of the world either

[Renton 17767]

I was talking to a guy from Kroll Associates, the yankee security specialists, earlier this year about Iraq - don't ask cos I won't tell

 

His view was that once the western troops pulled out it would settle down in 3-5 years to be like Columbia

 

some places would be fine to visit, some would be 100% dangerous and some would be variable and the folk on the ground would know which were which at any time

 

not  wonderfull but not the end of the world either

135824[/snapback]

 

That sounds like a very naive and optimistic viewpoint to me, and coming from a yank, I'm not remotely surprised.