Iraq - Stay or Go - Debate.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by BuggerAll, Jan 29, 2008.

?
  1. Stay until the job's done.

    30.6%
  2. Stay in the medium term but prepare to leave.

    11.1%
  3. Leave as soon as possible - NLT 6 months

    23.6%
  4. Leave now!

    34.7%

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. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    In March last year 92007) I did module C of the MA course. We had a debate on: "Iraq stay or go?" I would like to have that debate again.

    No doubt this has been covered before on Arrse, but I could not find it.

    Might be vain hope but can I ask debater to avoid the issues of whether or not it was right to invade Iraq on 2003 and whether the initial post invasion phase could have been done better and concentrate on the issue of whether we should leave now or in the near future.

    By we, I mean the Coalition. There is an argument that "it's a situation of the US's making and the UK should leave them to it". On a strictly numbers basis I don't suppose it would make much difference to them.

    I doubt if anyone is happy with the situation in Iraq at the moment apart from those who see it as an excuse to foment trouble for their own ends and their fellow travellers in the west who can spend their time revelling in the delights of I told you so. I think we will all agree that it was not the outcome we would want.

    As I see it the 'stay or go argument' is are we doing more good or harm by staying? What would be the outcome of us leaving? Would it be better or worse? Should we care?

    I think we should care as human beings in general and there is an argument that we have caused the mess and we should sort it out if we can. But can we?

    I am thinking mainly of the outcome in Iraq but there are also Geo-political questions. Much as many people revel in the humiliation that the US suffered in Vietnam it was not a good thing for the free world, or indeed for the many victims of oppression around the world including those in Vietnam.

    In March 07 I was a 'stayer' a year on I'm becoming undecided so I shake my head in the tree of knowledge that is ARRSE:

    Iraq - stay or go?
     
  2. Go! Should never, ever, have been there to begin with!

    Blair to The Hague as a defendant as a war criminal.
     
  3. Go now.
     
  4. out now.
    no more casualties in iraq for F all purpose other that tony 'tosser' bliar's legacy.
     
  5. The whole thing was a cake and arse created by twat Blair, let them kill each other all they want and get our boys and girls out of there
     
  6. GO NOWWWWW!!!!!!!!
    sittin around at Basra airbase is futile an if the indigies want to kill each other then hey let them have all the virgins they want.
     
  7. Seems the only job remaining to be done is to secure the profits of certain corporations linked to prominent US politicians.
    Not worth a further life of a British service (wo)man.
    Not worth the money the taxpayer is funding
    Not worth the resources the Uk is frittering away on the place

    Can't see anything to be gained by staying (or from going there in the 1st place tbh)
     
  8. Totally agree, bin it.

    SPAMS seem to think it will be another state and a perfect jumping off point to another place. Leave it now, I fail to see how it is viable for us to be there anymore.

    I by no means am downgrading our fallen or wounded in the above statement.
     
  9. As John Wayne said to the Sheep Herder . . .

    Lets get the flock out of there!
     
  10. I'd say stay - backing out would be seen to show a weakness handing a propaganda coup to the baddies, and while any casualty is a bad thing - the rate has reduced significantly since we walled ourselves in.
    I don't necessarily agree we were right to go to war but having picked a fight its bad form to back down what?
     
  11. Who DID pick the fight?

    It would seem to me great sense to get the hell out, firstly you remove our troops from harms way and cut the bill we are paying for rent!

    IF GW decides to go EAST into Iran, we will not be dragged kicking a screaming as point into another middle east hell hole.

    And it will help to relieve those who need a break in Afghanistan, or knowing this B lot build up troop numbers for the Spring Offensive starting on the 21 March 2008.
    (GUESS)
     
  12. Something I was taught recently: Iraq is the classic center of culture for the Middle East - where it goes others have followed. AQ is certainly more interested in it than a lot of places. It is key to ME stability. In comparison, Afghanistan is a hole. Yet we've gone for the somewhat crazy aspect of focussing resources on Afghan. Out of Afghan, into Iraq and fix it...

    Of course our very presence in Iraq may actually be fueling the conflict, and it may sort itself out better without us. However at least at the moment we can choose whichever thugs we want to help get to power... Rather than Iranian chosen thugs.

    How does that sound for a plan?
     
  13. Go, the place isn't worth another British serviceman/womans life.

    IMO it was a middle east craphole run by a craphead before the invasion, it's a craphole now run by a craphead and whatever happens it will be a craphole in the future still run by a craphead.
     
  14. Well if we didn't pick the fight we definitely picked a side.

    Why not spend the money required to build the forces we need and deserve then not have to chose between Iraq and Afghanistan?
     
  15. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Interesting.

    The numbers are for going, but are only backing up their position with ranting. The reasoned argument are for staying.

    There is something uncomfortable about the 'nothing to do with us, let them kill themselves if they want to' line.

    Firstly, arguably, we precipitated the current crisis by invading and ballsing up the initial phase of occupation, therefore it does have something to do with us. Secondly, if it was one two armies or (militias) fighting it out amongst themselves then perhaps fair enough let them get on with it. But it isn't it's one set of bully boys killing innocent civilians, and another set killing another lot of innocent civilians. All in pursuit of their own narrow and perverted aims.

    It's worth remembering that the vast majority of Iraqis want what we want, stable civil society, rule of law, democracy. (That's not to say they would vote for the kind of people we would vote for but like us they want the option of getting rid of them if they want to) The question is can we deliver? And is the price of delivering worth it?