only when troops completely withdraw, all western companies who have been given contracts leave and allow the Iraqis to control their wealth, the permanent bases that the americans are building are removed, and Iraq is truly and wholy handed to its people. Thats when the war will truly be won

So instead of staying or pulling out but realising chaos and civil war will result in Iraq in the wake of this decision, we should delude ourselves that everything in Iraq will be OK when we quit. In other words replace cut and run with cut and walk.

No the only realistic solution to Iraq's problems is to continue what we are doing now which is to carry on training up new Iraqi security forces so that they can take over the job of security when our troops leave at the end of next year.

Listen to yourself. Civil war and chaos?? The vast vast majority of the Iraqi ressistance are fighting against foreign occupation. Thats why the vast majority target the right places and things. Such as foreign and local (collaborators) troops, and infastructure controlled by foreigners. There is a very small minority (I think Danny wrote something on this that it is estimated there are about 3000 of them) who are religious extremists and seized teh opportunity of the Iraq war to enter the country and try to get there way. THis would be impossible as the only reason they may be working with the proper ressistance now is because of a common goal which is foreign toops and interests raping their country. Should all these leave then dont think for 1 minute that the proper ressistance will not turn on this insignificant ammount of extremists and do away with them. Do the math. 3000 extremists vs millions of Iraqis. But yea sure thats got civil war and chaos written all over it where as hundreds of thousands of foreign troops vs millions of Iraqis doesnt right? well all u need to do is take a good look at Iraq now to answer that question.

Idiot

3,000 foriegn insurgents is estimated by Anthony Cordesman of the CSIS - and that is three times more than previous unofficial Pentagon estimates. Either way it is a tiny number compared to the true strength of the resistance, and a tiny number compared to the 153,000 US forces there. So far there is no civil war and the only large foriegn presence is ours.
The best way to finish any resistance is to stop giving them something to resist - by bringing our troops home tommorow.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4447778.stm

Some of your terminology I find a bit dubious, like "victory" or "allies" but I admire your call for immediate withdrawal regardless of your motivation or logic.
However, your last sentence is quite chilling. In many towns and cities in Iraq you not only "levelled the playing field", you also the levelled the school and quite often before recess. And then there are the levelled hospitals, the levelled waterworks, ad nauseum.

It is to be hoped that once you are gone and having to spend so much on munitions and body bags, you will see fit to use the saving to pay for the damage you have caused. Maybe that'll stop the US continuing to invade places for no damn reason.

The Iraqi insurgency is really a civil war. In Iraq you have three rival factions which has historically been at each others throats for centuries and were forced together when the new state of Iraq was created in the early part of the 20th century. These are the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shia musilims. It was inevitable that after the fall of Saddam who held the country together by sheer brute force that Iraqi ethnic tensions would come to the surface. To make matters worse, Saddam gave the Sunni's who were a minority special favours and previlages over the Shias and Kurds. This was done to entrench his position of power by creating millions of Saddam loyalist, his fellow ethnic Sunnis of which he belonged.

The insurgents attacks have mostly been by Sunni militias against Shia targets and sometimes vice versa with militant Shias attacking Sunni targets. Meanwhile the Kurds have stayed neutral allying themselves with western allied forces in Iraq, and hoping for their own state or at least greater automony within a deferal Iraq.

A british soldier was killed the other day in Baasra. The British army report constant attacks on theyre troops and that they havent won support in the south as they thought they would. An MoD poll shows that even in the south of Iraq (shia all the way and supposedly the place that was gonna join the fight against Saddam during the war) the overwhelming majority support the Iraqi resistance and the suicide bombings. As for the kurds. They have always been sell outs who go where their interests are.

So explain how the country is in civil war?

PS British robot meaning soldiers are nothing but robots who follow orders. No sympathy for foreign occupying forces.

Hi Realist, here's a dose of reality for you, from the Independent today

Iraq's oil: The spoils of war
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 22 November 2005
Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.

Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."

Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.

"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.

Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."

No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.

Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.

Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said.

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

The current Iraqi government has indicated that it wants to treble production from two million barrels a day this year to six million. The US Energy Information Administration said such an increase would ease "market tensions" that have kept the price high. But governments and oil companies in the West said the report was purely hypothetical and that the issue was a matter for the Iraqi people. They also pointed out that Iraq needed money to rebuild in the sector.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the country's oil industry was in desperate need of investment after years of under-investment, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and more recent sabotage by insurgents and general looting. "The Iraqi government has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment," he said. He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts to help rebuild an industry that was the key source of revenue to help rebuild the country.

"We work closely with other departments such as the Treasury to give assistance and advice," he said, adding that the Foreign Office had not been involved in specific lobbying.

Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The groupsaidyesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."

No multinationals are operating in Iraq now because of the poor security situation.

Realist, you are wrong to say that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds have been at each other's throats for centuries. That's just nonsense. Its also not the case that they were forced to live together in an artificial Iraq, the formation of these various states was largely due to local factors. The Kurds always wanted their own state, and still do overwhelmingly, but their leadership and probably most Kurds are willing to remain in a federal Iraq with substantial autonomy, which the new constitution provides for, even though the Arabs historically oppressed them. The Sunnis seem to resent the loss of their dominance, but most Sunni political parties are recognising their mistakes and willing to support the constitution in exchange for promised concessions, while others, though opposed, are willing to work through the political system. The vast majority of Shias want a federal Iraq to continue (some even oppose federalism), with Islamic overtones, which have successfully been toned down.

There is no civil war. The Kurds completely support the coalition. The vast majority of Shias accept them pretty much, though would like them to withdraw sooner rather than later, and support the government and the constitutional process. Many Sunnis support the terrorists and oppose America, but they are increasingly prepared to work within the democratic system from what I can tell.

Justaposed from this democratic, civil society with its diverse but generally peaceful opinions are the terrorists, which consist of largely Sunni Ba'athists and nationalist extremists, Islamic fundamentalists, both Sunni and Shia (separate groups, largely the former), and numerous foreign jihadists and al-Qaeda people. Many of these groups are connected. Al-Qaeda Sunni extremists are slaughtering Shia in an attempt to incite civil war, but this has failed so far.

Iraq is not going to collapse - once the terrorists are defeated, a stable civil democracy will gradually emerge.

the coalition forces and foreign companies planning on pillaging the country. I agree once they are defeated the future will look brighter