Mark your choice and feel free to comment on your beliefs.

[ April 01, 2004, 19:17: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should the coallition back out of Iraq? (28 votes.)

When should the coallition back out of Iraq? (Choose 1)
* The coallition should pack up and be gone ASAP. - 14% (4)
* The coallition should stay until the new Iraqi gov't is estabilished. - 18% (5)
* The coallition should stay until the new Iraqi gov't is estabilished and that gov't asks the coallition to leave. - 36% (10)
* The coallition should leave when Iraq is stabilized or some other arbitrary point set by the coallition.. - 29% (8)
* The military force of the coallition should maintain a permanent place in Iraq (a la Korea). - 4% (1)

Well personally would feel a lot better if europeans backed out of Iraq, but that would be of course unethical. The Brittish and the Spanish people agreed to help in the occupation so it could be considered as betrayal if they backed out now. But no Iraq should definently not be abandoned by all now, it would result in anarchy an probably in a regime no better than Saddam himself, it would also make the death of all the American soldiers and Iraq civillians vain.

EDIT: And I would like to add that the coalition should leave when there is a stable government which has the support of the people, but I would like to see the elections soon, this situation can't go on forever and the Americans can't expect the sitation to just calm down while they're in there.

I am torn, this is a hostile occupation of a foreign country by some other countries and as such should never be. However, on the other side so would the damage already done be even greater if the attackers just pulled out and left Iraqi people to sift through the ruins.

Just quickly out of the top of the head I think the US relinquishing control into UN hands to oversee rebuilding and democratization. That would atleast to some extent legitimize the rebuilding. The US would of course supply most of the manpower and money but command should be held jointly. This would hopefully also stop any possible profiteering, or atleast spread it. This may seem like a bad thing for the US but I actually think that it would help diminish the very negative image the arab world have of the US and it would help to mend the small but real rift between the US and its closest allies.

BUT and this is a big but, I am no expert and I just thought of this scenario right here and now. I am fairly certain though that no one gains the civil war that might occur if the US just packs up and leaves and I do not think this one-sided occupation is all that much better but I absolutely dont want to see a scenario where the rest of the world goes in to clean up the mess. The US started it and the US pays for it.

Since US has entered the stage, it has to dance, it can't leave because that will lead to civil war and anarchy. As far as UK, Spain or any other nation of the coalition are concerned, I think that they can leave because they number of troops is rather small and because in the most of the cases the citizens of those nations were against their participation in the iraqi adventure (see Spain for example). Also, I don't want to see UN peacekeepers in Iraq. US government has created this mess, it has to pay for it. I see no reason why any other country has to pay in blood and money for the ambitions of Bush's goverment.

Leaving is not really an option.

I agree mostly with BOC, except that I think that *all* of the countries that committed troops to Iraq should stay until the new Iraqi government (whatever that may be) tells them to leave.
Just because the US led this venture doesn't mean that they should be left to deal with it on their own. While there may be a lot of disagreement among the civilian populations of some of the European countries involved, their governments decided to help tear down the old Iraqi government, and now they should stay and help build (or at the very least, oversee the construction of) the new government. To do otherwise would be a complete betrayal, both to the US and Iraq.
That's my 2 cents.

Not so long ago, I thought that it would be the best solution that the troops would leave as early as possible and leave the Iraqis to their own devices. Maybe they wouldn't take the best decisions, but those would have been their decisions, their mistakes. It's better to pay for own mistakes than for foreign mistakes. Now I think the occupation-forces have to pull through until at least some stability has been achieved. Yet, I don't think that will be easy.

As for the UN. Never should they go in and take responsibility. That is, only under one condition, a walk to Canossa by Bush and a huge mea culpa. In my view, that is very necessary, because I think one of the reasons for the whole situation is a "scapegoat"-mentality. If the UN would take responsibilty, everything that would go wrong, would be because:"the UN never gets anything right, get rid of it and get things done like they should be done...". Even like in this case, about events clearly not started by the UN. And this is a very dangours thing. It one of the reasons that situation happened. I often seen that "scapegoat"-mentality argumentation, that there was something not done in the Second-Persian-Gulf-War and that was because the UN said stop. In my view, the way the Second war ended was because the countries involved decided because the situation they faced, that stopping there would be best, there is no amorph entity to blame for obstructing the supposed "right thing". I think there's a famous quote by Bush the elder about that. Taking the UN as "scapegoat" has in my view led to very faulty reasoning and not thinking things through, like going into a country without a clear plan about what to try to achieve and how to do that. So, the UN should stay out there to avoid becoming "scapegoat" again. Responsibilty has to be laid on the correct shoulders.

As for Spain and Italy. I don't think they should stay. In the case of Italy, my conviction is not as strong as in the case of Spain. Berlusconi profits from the Italian "what goverment ?" attitude. Mabye they take that as reason for changing that a little bit (I mean, when a lot of them find actually out that they are in the coalitition of the willing). But both, Berlusconi and Aznar abused the situation, that they had huge power vested in them because of domestic reason and absolute majority in the Parliament and a very (really unhealthy) strong position in their party/coalition. So they could act against the clear will of a huge majority of their people. Their allies clearly knew that this situation couldn't/won't last and this would be at best an short lived alliance, until the next domestic shift in power.

a walk to Canossa by Bush and a huge mea culpa When do you expect hell to freeze over?

When do you expect hell to freeze over? Not in my lifetime. I just pointed out a very remote possibilty to change my stance on UN involvment. There would also be the very remote possibility that I would get my act together and put my posts through a word-correction program and get my spelling in shape. No. Or Baldur's Gate III. Yet, never say never... again, even if one only lives twice.

They should pack up and go home. They've done enough to free the country of evil now they should just leave the lot of them to kill each other. They've made it painfully obvious that they're no wanted