December 08, 2005

To stay or not to stay?

There has a been a lot of news on pulling out of Iraq with Bush talking a lot about missions and all of that…....I personally believe that pulling out of Iraq is the worst thing to do as of now. the troops are critical to mainatin some stability, leaving now would only enhance the argument that UK and US attacked on no solid grounds (which is true), then destroyed a nation (also true) and then buggered off.
The Economist and BBC both have interesting articles on why they should stay I agree with both views. Especially the fact that terrorism will ruin Iraq in the near future if the troops pull out (not that it isn't doing so now)

- 4 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Another fine entry! Anyway, I think I agree, but only FOR NOW…they should look to leave definitely before 2008, hopefully earlier.

    While the infidels have arsed up the invasion (I believe those were al-Zarqawi's exact words) and subsequent peacetime operations have been less than stellar, there's plenty of things the Yanks and whingeing Poms are doing in Iraq that are vital; hospitals, policing, etc. and (crucially) building water piping (yes, ok, the invaders probably caused most of the destruction).
    Crucially, it appears public opinion is inconclusive.

    The insurgents operate in 4 of 18 provinces, the Economist tells us – so they can beat this, right? And anyway, when the Iraqi govt asks them to go, they will go!
    The crucial point here is that the debate about whether they should stay or go should centre around either how (as a lot of ppl believe) it was a wrong invasion in the first place, or the future, and positive reasons (i.e. – now they're there, we have to look ahead regardless of whether they were right or wrong). I'll take the latter, it is a lot more realistic.

    However, I am beginning to doubt GW Bush's (formerly) formidable strategising…he's a moron, seriously. This is what happens when Colin leaves, imagine if Condi left!
    Dubya, 'Dick' (how apt) & Donald would try to invade France! Not a bad idea, actually…well, if they could find it on a bloody map ("is it past Brooklyn?" – "I dunno, maybe it's on route 66"). If they couldn't save a state of 5million people from bad weather, how will they save a nation of 26million politically polarised people from bombs and AK-47s?

    P.S. – Did y'all hear about the meeting between Blair & Bush where Bush remarked (or officially, 'joked') that they should bomb Al-Jazeera?! Tony probably doesn't know whether to laugh or cry…

    08 Dec 2005, 23:39

  2. Route 66 has not existed for many years.

    16 Dec 2005, 01:35

  3. Are you sure? I seem to recall a cabbie in Los Angeles mentioning it…

    But anyway, I'm glad that is the only thing you saw fit to reply to.

    16 Dec 2005, 01:57

  4. Yes, I'm certain. There is no Route 66 in the US any longer.

    20 Jan 2006, 17:48

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

December 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Nov |  Today  | Jan
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • I heartily agree with your sentiment, and i think it is the sentement of the well adjusted. I wish i… by nat on this entry
  • I'm starting a Ph. D. in Bristol this October, but as a non EU student I was surprised by how few fu… by S. Murthy on this entry
  • I thought you were little bit upset by the universities of UK. But I think Education in UK is not th… by John Hooker on this entry
  • Business Internships and Hospitality Internships in China available in China in various cities. Cost… by china Mbbs on this entry
  • well , i agree to everything that youhave written, but forget the 8.2 % growth , look at how the 'ot… by on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder