[Ceadrath]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Has this ever been considered? In the beginning they didn't even want to keep count of 'collateral damage'. If stabalisation was a priority they wouldn't have gone there

But the situation has now changed. Whatever the intention behind the initial invasion, at the current stage stability is important. With public opinion turned against the war their now needs to be tangible signs of success in rectifying the problem.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

If they leave there will be big problems as the Iraqi security force will not be able to cope. However, they have passed a point of no return (they did this as soon as they went in) in that whenever they leave the countr will be a mess. the main aim is now apparantly to train enough Iraqi troops so the US and UK can pull out and iraqis can kill Iraqis.

to think we could now solve these problems is laughable. there is little if any hope, trust or support for our troops and this will continue to deteriorate as people keep dying. We are the problem, we cannot be part of the solution. this scenario was not unforseen. It is why Saddam was not toppled after the first Gulf War. the US (under Bush Snr.) wanted (to paraphrase) 'a leader with an iron fist, who isn't Samm Hussein'. A lot of the problems we are seeing now have much deeper roots than three years ago and it is only the passing of time which can cool the situation to an acceptable level.

Yes, but the problem remains that without help and intervention then Iraq is not going to be able to recover. The damage has been done, whats needed now is compromises on both sides, which unfortunatly is seeming less and less likely as the situation further deteriorates.