h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You know what I mean, I wasn't saying they are Mother Teresa figures!

I was in no doubt there was going to be a short to long term problems afterwards. The US military in Saudi Arabia have long been a terrorist target. Essentially the mistakes of the past since colonial days have left many people living under the sway of ruthless dictators and despots.

The real solution is not military I will admit. The move towards improving the developing countries and bringing prosperity and therefore stability to much of the world is the way forwards. BUT there is a logical arguement for the use of military force in some circumstances and its nieve to think overwise. Something had to be done about Saddam, but done better.

It's the 'done better' that's the clincher, surely? Are the citizens of Iraq any better off now then before? Will they be in the conceivable future?

And what of the fallout? As a result of the invasion/ occupation, is not the Middle East now more unstable than previously? Take Iran as an example. Previously it looked like it was on the road towards a democratic breakthrough. Now, though, they are scared (with some justification!) and are falling back on entrenched positions. Plus - predictably - they are involved in a race for power in Iraq with some of the Shiite elements. All utterly forseeable.

And was the current situation worth the uncounted dead? For what benefit?

So, yes, something *did* had to be done about Saddam. However, it's thoroughly disingenuous for the Bush faction to have said so, given that a) that is unlikely to have been their primary motivation for invasion and b) his downfall was necessitated largely because the very same people strengthened him in the first place.

>>BUT there is a logical arguement for the use of military force in some circumstances

Agreed. I'm not a pacifist.

I get the impression that away from the troubled triangle around Bagdad and recently Basra with the problems with the Madi supporters things are much better. When journalists get away from the front page grabbing headlines or interviewing the hardliners thats what I've generally read.

I'm hoping the next 18 months with the new government and iraqi security forces they will be able to fully run Iraq and destroy the insergency.

Well...hope is a fine thing. But a sound basis for war?

I'm hoping for the peaceful future based on current events. Not as a justification for going to war in the first place.

Well...sure. But - at the risk of haranguing you further - surely that's at the root of the arguments pro- and anti- this Iraqi war?

Haven't we now arrived - almost by chance - at a state of affairs where there is an outside chance that the Iraqis may manage to organise themselves into a peaceful, democratic nation? (I'm giving good odds against 18 months, by the way). The curernt state of affairs was certainly not part of the game plan. Was there a game plan? Has the violence and upheaval of the last three years been worth it for a mere *chance*? Hell - all wars end eventually!

And let's consider where we are for a moment. While recognising the dangers of focussing on the worst atrocities...let's consider Haditha. Now...I'm relatively sanguine (unfortunate choice of words) about the brutalities of war. Soldiers are trained to be effective delivery mechanisms for mayhem and terror. If deployed properly, they can be put to good use, albeit at great risk to themselves...but collateral damage and random slaughter are inevitable. With that in mind...does it not behoove us to be *pretty damned sure* that when we send in the troops to kill and be killed...they're going to be able to come up with the goods and get out again in pretty short order?

That's Dubya's legacy. A dumb, immoral war.

And we haven't even started on Katrina. If a government can't even rescue its opwn people...then what's it *for*?

We will see in 18 months. I too doubt it will be entirely stable, but with the massive American presence being replaced by fully trained Iraqi equivilants one of the biggest excuses for the insurgency will end.

So...these Iraqi regulars...are these the same ones who are passing their guns on to sectarian militias?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/5006196.stm


As I say...hope is a wonderful thing. But it's not enough.

And...following the logic...what would be wrong with 'I hope it will go away if I do nothing?'