Brits at least T H I N K!!!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   For and against British withdrawal from Iraq 
Friday September 23, 2005
The Guardian 

Simon Jenkins suggests that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Ba'athists and Zarqawists (To say we must stay in Iraq to save it from chaos is a lie, September 21). How humane would the consequences of that withdrawal be? The news of a pullout would put a grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Zarqawi's force has named itself. Every effort would be made to detonate all available car bombs, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. Then this will be followed immediately by Iranian and Syrian militias' direct rule. Paint a mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal sadistic Ba'athists and Zarqawists. Let's not surrender to the worst enemy that currently faces civilisation. This battle deserves moral seriousness on all sides. 
Handrin Marph 
London 

I hope Tony Blair blushed when he read Simon Jenkins' article. At last, someone has put the case clearly and powerfully for withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq is already in anarchy and civil war. Sunnis and Shias have for some weeks now been moving out of each other's districts. Before coalition troops arrived there was a nasty regime which we armed and that we allowed to massacre Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iranians. But it was a regime that, by the early 2000s was better contained than ever before. 
Now Iraq is a training camp for terrorists and it's on an inexorable slide downwards. That's our fault. But we can't fix it. We're now fighting not only against al-Qaida/Zarqawi, but also the mainly Sunni unorganised nationalist insurgents, and Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi army. It's an impossible situation. The British couldn't control Iraq last time round when we were the colonial power. With the Americans in charge this time, and no nation-building strategy whatsoever, there is absolutely no hope of us controlling the situation, let alone setting Iraq up as a stable liberal democracy. 
Alexis Rowell 
London 
Surely any stance on the merits of a troop withdrawal depends on how a person views the insurgency. If you believe the insurgents' primary target is the occupying army, then absolutely get the troops out. But if you believe the anti-occupation rhetoric is a cover for Zarqawi's "total war" against the Shias, then surely the troops should stay.
Adam Blackwell 
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 
Iraq was a working country, in spite of Saddam and the sanctions, before Bush and Blair intervened. Today, they are the only two people in the world who believe that Iraq is a functioning democracy. However, withdrawal of our troops is the easy way out - we and the Americans should stay and set right all the mess we have created, no matter how long it takes.
Ramji Abinashi 
Amersham, Bucks 
If the democratic experiment in Iraq is doomed to collapse in a welter of blood and fire, if its people and security forces have not the character to fight for democracy and uphold it,this will send the clearest possible signal to the rest of the world that democracy just is not for Arabs. It will be next to impossible to argue against the contention that their culture and their religion are irreconcilable with it. And once that contention is accepted, it leads to the conclusion that Muslim communities in Europe are a fifth column inherently hostile to democracy and the rule of law, with all that implies for relations between themselves and the host societies. 
Michael Petek 
Brighton, E Sussex 
I am a long admirer of Labour and its fights for social justice within the UK as well as abroad. Forty years ago, the Democratic party was dominant within the US and was beginning a crusade for domestic social justice. This crusade foundered upon Vietnam. Our enactment of civil rights legislation caused the segregationists to move into the welcoming arms of Richard Nixon and his acolytes. Vietnam fractured the Democratic party and, with the clever propaganda of the Republicans, has tainted it. 
That taint still exists. The legacy of Vietnam still haunts the Democratic party and is, in part, responsible for the selection of Bush in 2000 by the supreme court. I have been disheartened to see the Labour party and its proud heritage being sullied by Iraq. The only reason the Labour party was not Iraqified electorally a few months ago was the singular ineptness of the Tories and the unwillingness of sufficient numbers of the electorate to view the Liberal Democrats as a credible party of government - I believe this is changing daily. Just as the Democratic party has not recovered from Vietnam, I fear that Labour is about to become Iraqified and will take decades to recover. 
David Whalin 
Annandale, Virginia, USA 
Why the fuss about the treatment of the British special forces soldiers captured by Iraqi police? According to George Bush a soldier not in uniform is an illegal combatant and therefore not entitled to the protection of the Geneva convention. Tony Blair sees nothing wrong with this and locking up people in Guant�namo Bay, so why shouldn't the Iraqis hand over such illegal combatants to their own equivalent? 
Dave Goodwin
Sticklepath, Devon 
I am aware of the term "undercover police", but am surprised to hear of "undercover soldiers". During the second world war such people were called spies, and were usually shot if captured. 
Nigel Smith
London

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Whisper Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 25 July 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4752	Post Options Post Reply Quote Whisper Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Brits at least T H I N K!!! Posted: 23 September 2005 at 4:09am
	For and against British withdrawal from Iraq Friday September 23, 2005 The Guardian Simon Jenkins suggests that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Ba'athists and Zarqawists (To say we must stay in Iraq to save it from chaos is a lie, September 21). How humane would the consequences of that withdrawal be? The news of a pullout would put a grin on the faces of the "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" brigade, as Zarqawi's force has named itself. Every effort would be made to detonate all available car bombs, so as to claim the withdrawal of coalition forces as a military victory for jihad. Then this will be followed immediately by Iranian and Syrian militias' direct rule. Paint a mental picture of a country that was already almost beyond rescue in 2003, as it is handed back to an alliance of homicidal sadistic Ba'athists and Zarqawists. Let's not surrender to the worst enemy that currently faces civilisation. This battle deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Handrin Marph London I hope Tony Blair blushed when he read Simon Jenkins' article. At last, someone has put the case clearly and powerfully for withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq is already in anarchy and civil war. Sunnis and Shias have for some weeks now been moving out of each other's districts. Before coalition troops arrived there was a nasty regime which we armed and that we allowed to massacre Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iranians. But it was a regime that, by the early 2000s was better contained than ever before. Now Iraq is a training camp for terrorists and it's on an inexorable slide downwards. That's our fault. But we can't fix it. We're now fighting not only against al-Qaida/Zarqawi, but also the mainly Sunni unorganised nationalist insurgents, and Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi army. It's an impossible situation. The British couldn't control Iraq last time round when we were the colonial power. With the Americans in charge this time, and no nation-building strategy whatsoever, there is absolutely no hope of us controlling the situation, let alone setting Iraq up as a stable liberal democracy. Alexis Rowell London Surely any stance on the merits of a troop withdrawal depends on how a person views the insurgency. If you believe the insurgents' primary target is the occupying army, then absolutely get the troops out. But if you believe the anti-occupation rhetoric is a cover for Zarqawi's "total war" against the Shias, then surely the troops should stay. Adam Blackwell Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Iraq was a working country, in spite of Saddam and the sanctions, before Bush and Blair intervened. Today, they are the only two people in the world who believe that Iraq is a functioning democracy. However, withdrawal of our troops is the easy way out - we and the Americans should stay and set right all the mess we have created, no matter how long it takes. Ramji Abinashi Amersham, Bucks If the democratic experiment in Iraq is doomed to collapse in a welter of blood and fire, if its people and security forces have not the character to fight for democracy and uphold it,this will send the clearest possible signal to the rest of the world that democracy just is not for Arabs. It will be next to impossible to argue against the contention that their culture and their religion are irreconcilable with it. And once that contention is accepted, it leads to the conclusion that Muslim communities in Europe are a fifth column inherently hostile to democracy and the rule of law, with all that implies for relations between themselves and the host societies. Michael Petek Brighton, E Sussex I am a long admirer of Labour and its fights for social justice within the UK as well as abroad. Forty years ago, the Democratic party was dominant within the US and was beginning a crusade for domestic social justice. This crusade foundered upon Vietnam. Our enactment of civil rights legislation caused the segregationists to move into the welcoming arms of Richard Nixon and his acolytes. Vietnam fractured the Democratic party and, with the clever propaganda of the Republicans, has tainted it. That taint still exists. The legacy of Vietnam still haunts the Democratic party and is, in part, responsible for the selection of Bush in 2000 by the supreme court. I have been disheartened to see the Labour party and its proud heritage being sullied by Iraq. The only reason the Labour party was not Iraqified electorally a few months ago was the singular ineptness of the Tories and the unwillingness of sufficient numbers of the electorate to view the Liberal Democrats as a credible party of government - I believe this is changing daily. Just as the Democratic party has not recovered from Vietnam, I fear that Labour is about to become Iraqified and will take decades to recover. David Whalin Annandale, Virginia, USA Why the fuss about the treatment of the British special forces soldiers captured by Iraqi police? According to George Bush a soldier not in uniform is an illegal combatant and therefore not entitled to the protection of the Geneva convention. Tony Blair sees nothing wrong with this and locking up people in Guant�namo Bay, so why shouldn't the Iraqis hand over such illegal combatants to their own equivalent? Dave Goodwin Sticklepath, Devon I am aware of the term "undercover police", but am surprised to hear of "undercover soldiers". During the second world war such people were called spies, and were usually shot if captured. Nigel Smith London