Iraq civil war warning for Blair

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Aug 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5240808.stm

    What should our response be? Be more extreme than the extremists worked for one Mr. Hussein. Not an option I know.

    Does make you wonder if the only way to keep the country united and functioning , instead of having to police several mini-civil wars in the event of partition , is to install a.n.other ruthless bastige.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5243042.stm
     
  2. The British Ambassador to Iraq has said that he beleives that the situation in Iraq will most likely get much worse, possibly all out civil war and all the death and destruction that will result in.

    To try to avoid such a situation will call for even more military intervention, more troops, more deaths again.

    Saddam Hussain was no statesman, but he did at least manage to control an extremely volatile country. Perhaps with use of terror, tyranny and dictatorship, but many Iraqis enjoyed a 'normal' life which they may not see again in their lifetime.

    He was seen as a threat to us but it is now acknowledged that he was basically 'all talk'. Has the invasion of Iraq really made the world a safer place? He was also someone who could be negotiated with to a lesser or greater degree, and if he was the enemy at least he was a visible and controllable enemy.

    How many more British and America lads are going to have to give their lives in a worthless pursuit? Not that I'm saying we should pull out - how can we?

    Would we be better off with Sadam still ruling Iraq today?
     
  3.  
  4. I hope not. But if that is the case, I would rather see someone like Tito. Saddam was more like Hitler or Stalin (by his own account no less). Who truly knows? Course, I'm not really qualified to comment am I? I'll go back to my corner.
     
  5. Merge the threads, perhaps?
     
  6. There'd be a lot more people alive today if Saddam had remained in power. To restore him, however, would require a lot more bloodshed before Iraq stabilised - and it probably wouldn't end with him in power.

    Coalition troops would be obliged to remain until the civil war ends. Whether that would be sooner than under the current plans is anyone's guess. Either way, it will be a long time and I can't see it being a proud withdrawal.

    Lesson - don't invade unless you intend to conquer and rule.
     
  7. Just an outside chance, but you never know...

    Perhaps the Israelis could be encouraged to swap Israel for Iraq.

    1. The Palestinians and Lebanese would be happy.
    2. The Israelis would quell any civil unrest in Iraq.
    3. The Israelis wouldn't have to import oil and could use the resources to make their plastic toolboxes.
    4. The Israelis and Iranians could fit their nuclear warheads to shorter range missiles and so improve the prospect of world peace.

    See, it just takes a bit of lateral thinking. ;)
     
  8. So Bliar has 2 choices:

    1. Thousands of more troops from the UK and US.

    2. Immediate withdrawl.

    Sorry, that should be 3 choices:

    3. Pretend everything is all right during the Parliamentary recess, regardless of the cost in lives.
     
  9. To paraphrase Catherine Tate's annoying chav - Yeah, but is he bovvered?

    He'll continue to do whatever US policy dictates and justify it as the war on turr.
     
  10. A surprising volte-face by a (US) liberal commentator:

    The NYT piece itself is online but subscription only, though I've Googled and found the following links discussing it:

    The Progressive
    The New Yorker
    The Free Press
     
  11. Blair and Bush will just dig their heels in and stay in Iraq til the end of their tenure, then it won't be their problem anymore