Stability in Iraq (1 Viewer)

Should coalition forces withdraw from Iraq?


  • Total voters
    7
Status
Not open for further replies.

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Iraq's been in the news recently because of the status-of-forces agreement between the United States and Iraq which has been delayed until Thursday. The agreement gives legality to US forces within Iraq, after the 31 December expiration of the UN Security Council mandate.

At this time of reflection though, it would seem that the war in Iraq is actually being won and that stability is being achieved. Pessimistic? Then just read the most recent quarterly Department of Defense report (70 pages) submitted to Congress which clearly shows a marked decrease in violence and public perception.

Here's more:

Since democratic elections in 2005 and its installation in 2006, the government of Iraq has undergone large and drastic reform. The situation in June and July of 2007 was grim, an all time high in violence; attacks against infrastructure, government organizations, bombs, both IEDs and mines, sniper, ambush, grenade, mortar and rocket attacks all peaked. In this months the United States, under George Bush implemented the surge of troops which has proven largely successful.

As it stands, violence in Iraq has sharply decreased, all of the aforementioned violence are at lows, ethno-sectarian violence and deaths have decreased, civilian deaths have drastically decreased, attacks on high-profile figures have waned and confidence amongst Iraqi people in all provinces towards the Iraqi government, the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police has very much improved; transcending ethnic divisions. 74% of people now say they feel safe in their neighbourhood. (Report to Congress and August Nationwide Poll)

So on the whole the situation in Iraq has improved drastically; that’s not however to say, that the Iraqi government can go it alone. The coordination, organization and effectiveness of the Iraqi army and police is still low; less than 50% of Iraqi people say they feel safe outside their neighbourhood.

The most recent Department of Defense report to Congress suggests however that the Iraqi police and army are no way near operational readiness alone. That is why the recent status-of-forces agreement between the US and Iraq is so significant. The agreements allows for both security, training and sovereignty – it is a tribute to cooperation and to the independence of Iraq.

Do people still deny that the coalition are winning the war in Iraq? Still believe that we should withdraw immediately? Or perhaps that because the war is immoral we should forfeit stability in the region?
 
Last edited:

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
dude, think about the dead people.not who is winning or loosing. fucking idiot.
 

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
bigboyjames said:
dude, think about the dead people.not who is winning or loosing. fucking idiot.
Are you joking? Imagine how many more will die if civil war and large scale violence erupts in Iraq. It's not about America vs. Iraq anymore... it's about America and Iraq vs. extremist factions...

Many have died, many more probably would have had America not intervened regardless of their motives. Many more will die if a withdrawal occurs.
 

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
bigboyjames said:
idiot found/george bush supporter found/ dumb shit found.
Well I wouldn't want to upset the anti-Israel league now would I?

However the fact is, that if America were to withdraw today civil war would without doubt erupt. The ethnic tensions with in the country are lessening, in the sense that increasing cooperation is occuring. That's a tribute to the effort of the MNF in Iraq.

bigboyjames said:
dude, think about the dead people.not who is winning or loosing. fucking idiot.
Yeah, because thinking about them is really going to help those living in poverty or surrounded by violence. Thinking about them is really going to restore stability. Silly me, or should I say 'fucking idiot' me, for assuming that action and not rhetoric would make a difference.

Let me guess... you support both Obama and Rudd. (Don't respond to this, it's rhetorical and a tangent which will just detract from the thread)
 
Last edited:

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
alexdore993 said:
Well I wouldn't want to upset the anti-Israel league now would I?

However the fact is, that if America were to withdraw today civil war would without doubt erupt. The ethnic tensions with in the country are lessening, in the sense that increasing cooperation is occuring.
let the iraq's kill each other. who gives a fuck? i dont. the fact that foreign troops are actually in the country still indicates that America doesn't really give a shit about anyone...but gives a shit about its interests.......why the fuck would any sane country send its troops to protect bunch of random desert niggers on the other side of the world?
 

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
bigboyjames said:
let the iraq's kill each other. who gives a fuck? i dont. the fact that foreign troops are actually in the country still indicates that America doesn't really give a shit about anyone...but gives a shit about its interests.......why the fuck would any sane country send its troops to protect bunch of random desert niggers on the other side of the world?
Are you anti-Israel or anti-Middle East?

Hmm... well 'why' isn't the question. It's about how to improve regional stability at the moment and I might add, that regional instability leads to global instability. What's more, if America lose in Iraq they will lose any hold they have in the Middle East and any possible action against Iran. (Not that they would ever act against Iran.)

And you're an idiot. America has done more for the world in power, than any other sole superpower. Though you've changed the topic again, we're talking about a withdrawal and whether stability can be maintained, as well as the effects of a withdrawal. At this point, arguing over why the US are there is irrelevant, because the fact is they are.
 

Aryanbeauty

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
968
Location
Bayview Heights
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
It is obvious Iraq war opponents are sad to see the situation in Iraq improving so quick because it means they are losing their arguments. ha ha.

George Bush will be remembered as the Saviour of Iraqis, sooner or later.
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Are you anti-Israel or anti-Middle East?
i am anti Israel, anti middle east, pro Palestine....fucking understand?
Hmm... well 'why' isn't the question. It's about how to improve regional stability at the moment and I might add, that regional instability leads to global instability. What's more, if America lose in Iraq they will lose any hold they have in the Middle East and any possible action against Iran. (Not that they would ever act against Iran.)
you would vote for bush for a third term right? why the fuck does USA need a "hold" on the middle east.....let the arabs have their own revolution if they are even capable of doing so without external forces playing a part. is that too hard for you to understand?

And you're an idiot. America has done more for the world in power, than any other sole superpower.
yeah and? does that mean i cannot criticize america?
 

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
bigboyjames said:
i am anti Israel, anti middle east, pro Palestine....fucking understand?
I was under the impression Palestine was in the Middle East... fucking understand?

bigboyjames said:
you would vote for bush for a third term right?
Definitely not.


bigboyjames said:
let the arabs have their own revolution if they are even capable of doing so without external forces playing a part. is that too hard for you to understand?
Yeah well that worked really well with Saddam Hussein... that is, except for the hundreds of thousands that were killed. You're too idealistic if you actually believe that countries do not intervene to protect their interests. You have to accept it, because every country does it. Australia, Israel, Palestine, US, UK, China... it's called international relations... ever heard of it? Have you even heard of the League of Nations, the United Nations, ASEAN, G8, APEC? I could go on, all these organisations promote or promoted the idea of sovereignty but also the idea of maintaining stability through intervention in extreme circumstances.

I might also add, though that it is in America's interests to remain in Iraq. Again, regional instability leads to global instability as rogue states grow in strength...

Again though, you said that you cared about the people dying. Withdrawing would result in more deaths, so what would this achieve?
 
Last edited:

nottu

Banned
Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
15
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Dude, stop responding to him, he's a fucking troll trying to get you angry.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
Re poll:
What about 'yes, the war is won'? At least in so far as the need for direct military involvement is concerned
 

impervious182

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
634
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Last edited:

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
WE can win the war

idk, i don't think WE have anything to do with it at all

EDIT: Reminder that the US govt has spent this much on the Iraq war: $574,808,258,582.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top