With regards to this subject, the formation of unequivocal opinions is, I trust you’ll agree, exceptionally difficult.

“Ideologues, one and all.”

That may be true of some. I opposed the invasion vehemently, and that view and my currently ineffectual ditherings as to ‘the next step’ are – without wanting to sound quaveringly self-righteous – only concerned with the good of the Iraqi populace.

Ben

i’ve re-read all your posts on this thread. It’s certainly true that you’ve never actually typed the words “we should withdraw troops now”. In fact, the only unequivocal opinion you’ve offered is that troops should be withdrawn if it can be demonstrated they are doing more harm than good. I’ve already said this is a particularly uncontroversial view but then there is no requirement to be controversial.

My main point was and remains that the Iraqi government is probably in a better position to judge these matters than bloggers in the UK, or indeed anyone in the UK. My issue is not so much with those who call for a troop withdrawal, but those who do so claiming this is what is best for Iraq and Iraqis, almost as though they are deaf to the wishes of the democratically elected government there.

Ideologues, one and all.

“And as I’ve said, support for having troops withdrawn within any arbitrary period will in all likelihood be influenced by what the respondents assess the security situation might look like by the end of that arbitrrary time period.”

Yes, but in this report 78% of those polled believed that the occupying forces were provoking more conflict than they were preventing, and 61% stated that their security would be enhanced by a withdrawal. It seems unlikely, then, that they were expecting security to improve within the intervening time.

“Much better to stick to the convention of engaging with the democratically elected representatives of the people. You’ve a little more circumspect in your comments about how we might judge whether troops are a help or a hindrance. At least, you haven’t done as I’ve done and made it clear that the obvious barometer of our effectiveness and heplfulness is the Iraqi government.”

In the poll that you offered, only 27 percent of Iraqis believed that the presence of forces enhanced security, while 61 percent stated that it was actually to the detriment of the security situation. Their rationale for opposing troop withdrawal, then, was the fear that a crisis would occur in its aftermath.

The problem, however, is that these fears may not be dispelled. As long as occupying forces remain in the country, there will be those who oppose them and exacerbate those fears.

“This issue, clearly, is how we gauge this, and if you can come up with something better that using the assessment of those who have been elected to represent the people of Iraq, then I’m all ears.”

I don’t have a reliable opinion as to what action should be taken, though, which is why I engage in these discussions. When and if I do, however, I’ll try and remember to drop a note in here.

Thanks for challenging some of my lazier views.

Ben

Genuinely, I’m interested. Are you talking about a dicussion where the case was made for extending social abortion (by which I mean where no threat to the life of the mother or disability to the foetus is applicable) to full-term, or are you simply referring to the practice of permitting third trimester abortions in very specific circumstances?

Obviously, the latter is already permitted and I support that, even though it is clear from several threads on this blog that not all contributors are aware of this. This is quite different from simply removing the time constraint on all abortion, which is how I’m interpreting your earlier comment concerning a case made for “full-term abortion”.

Well Brownie, if it isn’t there in that thread it is certainly around, but your lack of conviction as well as amount of time avoiding getting in to the debate is laughable. Cheers.

As before (and as demonstrated by my discussions with BenSix), I’m more than happy to have a debate, but what truly would be “laughable” would be for me to submit a comment which argued against full-term abortion rights for all forms of abortion if indeed no-one was actually making such a case.

Do you see my quandry?

The options did not represent moments for the initiation of a withdrawal, but timetables for a phased withdrawal. 37 percent wanted troops withdrawn “within six months” and 34 percent favoured “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline”.

And as I’ve said, support for having troops withdrawn within any arbitrary period will in all likelihood be influenced by what the respondents assess the security situation might look like by the end of that arbitrrary time period. It’s not indicative of a desire to see all troops gone within time period X *regardless of the implications*, which is how these polls are sometimes reported.

There are many reasons for scepticism regarding all the results of that particular BBC/ABC poll.

The apparent contradictions you list appear in virtually every poll I’ve ever seen about Iraq. Neither the BBC/ABC poll nor the most recent poll I link to are unique in this regard.

In the context of this report, one wonders, does ‘immediate withdrawal’ mean the immediate initiation of a phased withdrawal – as you defined it – or simply the pulling out of all troops within twenty-four hours.

Given the latter or anything like it is a logistic impossibility, I’d suggest it means the former and this is how it will have been commonly understood.

Our digressions aside, my initial point – that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn” – stands.

And I didn’t contest this, but made the observation that the democratically elected Iraqi government is probably best-placed to make this judgment. You suggested that we add to that list – amongst others – the Iraqi people, and you cited opinion poll findings to buttress this point. At which point we got into a discussion about whether the opinion polls do offer any evidence of support for “immediate” withdrawal. I’ve explained why, even if such support did exist (and I have still to see), using opinion polls to determine policy this subject would be foolish (hence “wihtdraw, return, withdraw, return” as the polls dictated). Much better to stick to the convention of engaging with the democratically elected representatives of the people. You’ve a little more circumspect in your comments about how we might judge whether troops are a help or a hindrance. At least, you haven’t done as I’ve done and made it clear that the obvious barometer of our effectiveness and heplfulness is the Iraqi government.

You are, of course, free to make whatever points you wish, but it’s spectacularly uncontroversial to state that we shouldn’t be there if Iraqis would be better off without us. I don’t know a single supporter of the war who would disagree with this. This issue, clearly, is how we gauge this, and if you can come up with something better that using the assessment of those who have been elected to represent the people of Iraq, then I’m all ears.

“This is why I specifically questioned the existence of polls which mentioned an “immediate withdrawl” where immediate meant immediate, not at some future time.”

Yes, and that was such a poll. The options did not represent moments for the initiation of a withdrawal, but timetables for a phased withdrawal. 37 percent wanted troops withdrawn “within six months” and 34 percent favoured “gradually withdraw[ing] U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline”.

“Do you think the coalition should withdraw, return, withdraw, return as the polls dictate, or operate with the consent of the Iraqi government?”

No, I think that such polls should be considered, as the will of the people is usually an indication of the lives of the people. There is no need to act upon a single factor, and I’ve never claimed that there is such a need.

“And 53% supported varying alternatives to the “leave now” scenario. In other wrods, most didn’t want troops to ‘leave now’”

- There are many reasons for scepticism regarding all the results of that particular BBC/ABC poll. Why, for example, would a slim majority support the presence of coalition and yet a large majority claim that the presence of US troops is to the detriment of the ‘security situation’. Why, also, would a majority support attacks on coalition troops.
- The ‘leave now’ theme was, I think, introduced by you. While it is an interesting debate, I can’t see how it detracts from my claim that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities [or people]” the Iraqi people would support (and benefit from) a withdrawal.

“I imagined they thought of the first part of that long ago.”

There have indeed been reports of a phased withdrawal (although there seems to have been with every year).

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1025422/All-British-forces-pulled-Iraq-year.html

“Take a look at this and check out page 4.”

That is indeed a far more encouraging poll. What interests me, again, is why only 26 percent support the presence U.S. and coalition troops and yet a majority do not support ‘immediate withdrawal’. In the context of this report, one wonders, does ‘immediate withdrawal’ mean the immediate initiation of a phased withdrawal – as you defined it – or simply the pulling out of all troops within twenty-four hours.

Our digressions aside, my initial point – that “if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn” – stands. Whether they are is a matter for debate, but it is a debate that must be had, especially considering the impending US elections.

Respectfully,

Ben

(Incidentally, apologies if I’ve lost all sense of spelling/grammar. The time takes a toll.)

But that’s exactly what I mean. If you ask an Iraqi whether he wants troops to withdraw in 6 months, then his/her answer will be conditioned by his opinion about what the situation will look like in 6 motnhs time. It’s entirely conceivable that those who would support a withdrawal in 6 motnhs do so because they believe the security situation will have improved in 6 months. If in 6 months time you asked the same Iraqi about troop withdrawals, he might well argue for a withdrawal in another 6 months rather than immediately because the secuirty situation has not developed the way he imagined it would 6 months earlier.

This is why I specifically questioned the existence of polls which mentioned an “immediate withdrawl” where immediate meant immediate, not at some future time.

The failure of the Coalition to even consider or verify this implied that their plans were not influenced by the will of the Iraqi people.

Do you think the coalition should withdraw, return, withdraw, return as the polls dictate, or operate with the consent of the Iraqi government? Are UK troops in Germany there with the consent of a majority of Germans, or the German government?

A later BBC and ABC study suggested that 47% of Iraqis wanted Coalition forces to ‘leave now’

And 53% supported varying alternatives to the “leave now” scenario. In other wrods, most didn’t want troops to ‘leave now’.

I’d support an immediate review of the need for British forces in Iraq, and whether they are a help or a hindrance to the security and will of the Iraqi populace.

I imagined they thought of the first part of that long ago. And whilst I wouldn’t completely ignore whatever the polls were telling me about the wishes of the Iraqi people, the convention is to work their democratically elected representatives.

Take a look at this and check out page 4.

I read it, but it wasn’t you said it was. Douglas pointed out to those who didn’t know that abortion post-24 weeks was possible in exceptional circumstances. See me at 32 above where I make the same point. I didn’t see anyone on that link arguing that we should extend the justifications for pre-24 week termination to post-24 weeks abortion including up to birth.

So in fact I still don’t see anyone making the case for non-exceptional case full-term abortion (except perhaps Doug in his roundabout way). Maybe there are more who support non-exceptional full-term abortion, but contrary to what you claim their arguments do not appear on that thread. Which comes as a relief because, as I mentioned right at the start, I really don’t have the stomach for such a debate.

WASTE OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY! I’m sure the Tories in her area can find a better waste of money.

OK, Daily Mail moment over .

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?lb=brme&pnt=250&nid=&id=

In 2006, a poll suggested that 71% of Iraqis wanted U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq ‘within a year or less’. The failure of the Coalition to even consider or verify this implied that their plans were not influenced by the will of the Iraqi people.

A later BBC and ABC study suggested that 47% of Iraqis wanted Coalition forces to ‘leave now’, but offered no option of a timetabled withdrawl and rather conflictingly stated that 72% thought that the presence of US forces was to the detriment of ‘the security situation’. A majority even supported attacks on Coalition troops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_09_07_iraqpollaug2007_full.pdf

“Do you accept that, were Britain and the US to withdraw troops now, they would be tearing up a UN resolution that underwrites their presence?”

I wasn’t aware that the UN had become ‘relevant’ again, but so be it. Which specific UN resolution are you referring to?

“I can’t think of anything more reckless than to withdraw troops now, just as light starts to appear at the end of the tunnel.”

Well, I haven’t actually given my own opinion yet, but ‘if I was Prime Minister’ I’d support an immediate review of the need for British forces in Iraq, and whether they are a help or a hindrance to the security and will of the Iraqi populace.

(Incidentally, apologies for the derail.)

Settle in and have a good read. Can we have your argument now, pretty please?

Do you accept that, were Britain and the US to withdraw troops now, they would be tearing up a UN resolution that underwrites their presence?

I can’t think of anything more reckless than to withdraw troops now, just as light starts to appear at the end of the tunnel.

I respect your considered opinion, and was merely substantiating an argument. I would say, however, that to the latter grouping you should add the American people, the British people and, judging by the most recent poll that appears to be available, the Iraqi people.

NAY to Nadine Dorries. What is that woman’s problem? I don’t understand why on Earth she’s obsessed with abortion when she’s never had one herself. I also don’t understand how someone that dumb managed to become an MP, for anyone who might not have seen it yet:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=634

She and Anne Coulter and women like that – what the hell? They want to decree how life should be for the rest of us (invariably full of Dark Ages restrictions) while giving themselves freedom equivalent to that enjoyed by men. I think they probably want to be men, deep down…

But seriously – is Dorries even competent for her post? Is she doing anything the voters ask of her, or is she just lucky enough to be holding a safe seat?

As soon as the democratically elected Iraqi government can be counted amongst those fairly prominent figures, then yes. In fact, this is the official policy of HMG. I’m of a view that the Iraqi government is probably in a better position to judge these matters than bloggers in the UK.

He’s talking to you, Indecent Leftie.

You are sure as fuck not a typical Canadian….

Well, I’m still waiting for my first partial-birth abortion, if that’s what you mean?

Have yersel a wee lie down there, douglas.

Douglas – there’s no need for that.

It is you that argues for death in Iraq, in order to save Iraq. You are a daft wee tit. And Canada has sweet FA to do with it.

You may well be a proto fascist. In fact, I think you are….

You are sure as fuck not a typical Canadian….

By which you mean ‘Canada’, of course.

Indeed, we should be sceptical of all information filtered through the media, but those behind the US statement have the means, a motive and a history of obscuring such incidents. I could be wrong, of course – though I doubt that more will be made of the incident – but I used a current example for reasons explained below.

“I’m afraid the US Marine Corps are not funded by British taxpayers.”

Would you quibble with the proposal that the invasion was the result of a union between Britain and America? If not, then would you argue against the suggestion – made by fairly prominent figures* – that if UK and US forces are of little help to the Iraqi authorities they should be withdrawn? If not, then would you agree that such cases as those above are indicative of Coalition forces hindering Iraqi authorities?

Admittedly, these are ‘minor incidents’ in comparison with the horror that Iraq has endured during preceding years, but current events are more relevant to the decision to withdraw toops. If I’d wanted to make a more concerted and substantiated case then I could, of course, have referenced Fallujah, the Haditha killings, the torture of Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the continued theft of Iraqi assets.

* http://www.barackobama.com

“No doubt this will see you Googling for the last bloodletting involving British troops, as if there were some moral equivalence with the extermination of young-males waiting in line to get a job, or the slaying of women and children buying food in a market-place, or the murder grieving families burying their dead, or the decapitation of journalists, etc. ,etc..”

Brownie, if we’re debating the actions of Coalition forces in Iraq then of course we need to use empirical examples. I wasn’t making any attempt to draw ‘equivalency’, but merely describing them both as sickening incidents as I considered that axiomatic.

“Do you know where the full-term abortion case is hiding on this site, Jennie?”

I’ve certainly never seen such a debate.

attempts to ingratiate yourself with a bunch of people who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire, are truly nauseating.

Haven’t heard one from the condemnathon in quite a while yet.

Maybe that’s just me, given this particular policy’s spectacular popularity in the civilised world, and all.

You do know Canada has completely decriminalised abortion and New Zealand & Australia are also moving towards it?

Maybe all that time spent condemning “proto-fascists” and writing eulogies for Bernard Manning could be better spent in the real world.