Not wanting to get into the debate about whether the whole invasion/liberation thing should have happend in the first place what do people think should happen now? This is of course is linked to the Presidential election thread as whoever wins will play a big role in deciding what happens.

Should the troops be pulled out ASAP even if we aren't sure that the Iraqi's can defend themselves yet? Or should they remain for an undetermined time scale?

no if you go in and fuck the whole country up please be kind enough to stay and clean up YOUR MESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get them out and let them kick the shit out of each other til the UN are called in and the Americans pay for it.

The problem with pulling the troops out now is that if the Iraqi government is not strong enough to take care of the country and the extremists regain control, we are then back to square one. The main difference being that the Extremists have even MORE reason to despise us than they did before we went in.

I think pulling out of Iraq too soon is very dangerous and the timing needs to be right.

Can't go back to square one, Quej, the Americans control the oil now......

That's just what they are trying to do, but Lefties and Muslims (over here, don't want them to). They've had considerable success of late with the new tactics, but the problem is the corruption, murderous tribalism, and incompetence.

It's now up to the Iraqis to get their fingers out and not just rely on the Americans.

They hope to have that sorted if Obama or Hilary gets in.

I think with a new president around the corner it will be a milestone in being able to move on and look to a brighter future for Iraq. Lets be realistic here, the country is in a mess, but lets not kid ourselves that this is all down to America, the place has always been a cancerous infested wound, with King Tumour and his oppresive reign. Problem is you remove the main tumour but the cancer then spreads into small growths all over the country. Its gonna take a long long time for Iraq to become anywhere near stable. Its something that everyone needs to work towards, and pulling out of Iraq should only happen when the country is able to govern itself properly.

Hilary In!!

Erm, King Tumour was supported and armed by whom, exactly? When it suited them of course.......

does it still not make him King Tumour? Sorry its one of my bug bears, its a point and a valid one Fitz, I dont disagree with you. However, he was an evil man who did a lot of evil things and the people he killed or tortured deserve better than to have his name mentioned with a but at the side. He was what he was, regardless of who aided what, when it suited whoever. I wont excuse him by following up any mention of what he did with a deterrant elsewhere.

According to the United States they could be there for an hundred years.

If the troops pull out there will be civil war, nobody could say for sure who eventually would seize control of the country, if its Islamic militants then the West is back to square One.

The atrocities that are happening in the country are not being reported by the press, civilians are being murdered by the hundreds.

Basically its a mess created by Bush.

So no change then as this was actually happening before

Were they ? Where have you read that ?

The standard of living in Iraq is now rock bottom ,normal people are living in hell and living in an occupied country.

Saddam did kill many of his people but now Iraqis are killing each other,and the initial shock and awe killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Are you suggesting Iraq is now a better safer Country ?

Same place you read yours?

Saddam killed thousands of people, tortured even more and would have continued to do so. His sons were both equally sadistic in nature and the regime would have continued with them.

I am not for one minute suggesting Iraq is a better safer place, don't put words in my mouth, but neither was it safe for its people before. Fact.

I went to Uni with a few people from Iraq,you're talking bollox.

Saddam and his regime killed alot of people but more people have died since operation shock and awe.

Theres plenty of video evidence to peruse on the net of whats really interested.

Okay this is a debate forum, its where you discuss and give opinions, even if they are of opposing views. If you dont have enough respect than to tell me I am talking bollox then I wont waste my time with you.

What I said was totally true, he has killed a lot of people and it would have continued. Nothing remotely untrue about that. You havent actually read what I put.

Don't talk to people like that, it will not go down well on this forum. Show some respect please.

How many people have the coalition forces killed ? compared to Saddam,why didnt the USA intervene in Rwanda etc ?

Its a serious debate and you're relating facts you have read in the Sun.

I don't read newspapers, so thats you talking utter twaddle then. As I said, show some respect and i'll discuss, until then talk to yourself

Approx 151,000 Iraqi deaths since the occupation, no substantiated figures of deaths during Saddams reign, but estimates are between 150,000 to 1 million.


Deaths by violence, that is, of course.

Where did you get these figures ? ,the coalition have not been counting civilian deaths ,do the figures on Saddams reign include the Iran - Iraq war.

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html

According to these people more people are dying per year under US occupation.

Thats only sustainable if it continues. Your same source is saying that between 500k and 1 million died at the hands of saddams regime, which is what I was saying before. You are contradicting yourself.

No Im not,those figures are based on a report based in 2004, its well documented that the coalition dont count civilian casualties.

These figures are estimates not FACT.

Exactly!!! As is the number of deaths since the removal of Saddam. You are chasing your own tail here and failing miserably lol You really need to at least attempt to sound like you know what you are talking about, otherwise you just sound stooopid

We think about 650,000 extra people have died because of this invasion, and about 600,000, some 90%, are from violence. . . . this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn't very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.--"Co-Author of Medical Study Estimating 650,000 Iraqi Deaths Defends Research in the Face of White House Dismissal ," democracynow.org, October 12, 2006

Other estimates of civilian deaths are higher.

Well that must make it true then.

I know a few Iraqi's that fled the country in the early 90s, they didn't have the best words to say about Saddam.

In fact because I kniow a few people who feel that way I state that you are talking bollox and they are 100% representative of the whole country.

I do know what Im talking about ,all Im saying is that ultimately the Iraqi people will lose more civilians during and after an US invasion.

More than a million will die in a civil war when the USl eaves Iraq.

I think you will find that if you read my posts Im informed.

Im not stating that Saddam was great for Iraq,but life for the ordinary person is a lot worse now,to suggest otherwise is foolish.

no, you are guessing that, you don't KNOW that.

Unless you have been to Iraq personally, lived there both before and after the regime was removed you do not know that. Am sorry but you don't. You are no more informed than any one else is. And to suggest otherwise is foolish

Be serious , why do you think the USA isnt withdrawing from Iraq, are seriously stating a country made up of many factions isnt going to decend into a civil war ?

Ive stated I knew a few people from Iraq at University. And its not rocket science to work it out for myself.

Knowing a few people from Iraq is NOT you living there and knowing first hand, its no more than reading a newspaper. And believe me, never go into rocket science or we all will be Fcuked

Living in a War zone is not being better off IMO.

Lets agree to disagree.



:lolanimate:

Well you keep coming back to the rebels so you must like it a bit!!

Yeah its a nice site ,not bitchy like Waccoe,its not like a War Zone :lolanimate:

Get a room you two......

Regardless of wether or not you think the initial invasion was good or bad, the fact is that it has been done and I truly think that even though the reasons were wrong and despite the deaths that the invasion has caused, you can not turn your back on what was going on in Iraq regardless of the death toll.

The arguements about Somalia, North Korea etc are good ones. yes of course something should be done about what is going on in them countries as well, but just becuase you dont intervene there, it does not mean you should not elsewhere.

Regardless of the reasons, I believe that eventually, the country will be better off. What price do you put on Freedom KATKIT? What is the limit you would pay for Democracy?

Living without democracy and freedom is basically being a slave.

Where would we be if the chaps in WW1 or WW2 had decided that the price they had to pay was too high?? How many died then?

Come on KATKIT, what is your price for Freedom?

I agree with 99% of the above.

Price of freedom ? I think free and fair elections would have been better than invading a sovereign country against the wishes of the UN.

Obviously when Saddam was in power ,free elections were a remote possibility.

Whats you're solution to Iraqs problems.

You've lost me. Not quite sure what you mean.

Also, i'm not getting into the war being right or wrong, but the UN were not doing anything to make the situation better at all. Not one damn thing, if there is going to be a UN then they need to show some balls every now and again. They can't just throw another piece of paper at Saddam, it clearly wasn't working.

Obviously when Saddam was in power ,free elections were a remote possibility.

Are you taking the piss? There was less than Zero chance of free Elections while sadam was in power. Cruel dictators who are guilty of ordering mass murders do not allow free elections.

Whats you're solution to Iraqs problems.

I dont have any solution m8. I dont think anyone does at the moment. I am not a politician. Just someone who believes in freedom whatever the cost.