New Zealand's troops are pulling out of Iraq under a cloak of secrecy as security deteriorates in the battle to control the war-torn country.

Nearly 100 people have been killed in attacks in Baghdad and Baquba this week, while Australia has sent a "logistics team" to Iraq to determine whether two of its nationals are being held hostage.

The New Zealand Defence Force is refusing to give any details of the withdrawal of the 60-strong Kiwi military engineering contingent, which has been hunkered down in Basra for the past five weeks as violence escalates throughout Iraq.

The lightly armed engineers have helped restore water treatment plants and fix municipal infrastructure including schools, police stations and bridges. That work all but stopped early last month when fighting spread south from Najaf. The New Zealanders were confined to Fortress Lines, the base they have shared for the past year with British forces.

The situation in Iraq was very different from a year ago.

Our troops were sent in a non-combatant role "but what's happening now is that everyone's a combatant whether they want to be one or not. As time has gone on the situation has become much more lethal and no one can guarantee their absolute safety."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3035130a10,00.html

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

Ken.. do you not understand that for people who believe in this war.. and there are a LOT of Americans who do... way more than you think.. for those people, stories like this just make them more determined to do it and do it ourselves...

It is obvious what you think of this war but come November we are going to see AMERICA thinks about it... until then keep posting these weak attempts at sapping the morale of the American people and it's military...

Actually, that explains WHY you support John Kerry now doesn't it?

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

All we get on the news is the bad stuff. Just think about it. We NEVER get anything from southern area.....little from the northern area. All we get is the news coming from the Sunni triangle.....the hot spots. I think backing off from Fallujah months ago was a mistake. We should have cleaned out the entire area. I realize lots of civilians would have been killed, but it's going to have to be done eventually. I still don't understand how they can load up cars with explosives and no one sees this. No one turns anybody in. That says to me the civilians in that area are in support of it. At least we bombed a part of it based on intelligence the other day. But obviously that's not enough. I say we should wipe out that entire rat's nest.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Do you know how many Germans believed in that war in 1939? The rest of the world did not. Do you know how many russians believe in what they did in Poland, Hungary, Afghanistan, other countries? Do you know how many Iraqies believed in Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, how many people in arab countries believe in elimination of israel?

Just because a lot of people in one country believe in something ignoring the rest of the world and ignoring facts does not make it right, it makes these people brainwashed.

__________________
The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself. George W. Bush

Some would freak if we pulled our troops out of Iraq, but the rest of the world and the UN would clean up the mess GWB made. I think the US should leave Iraq now and shift our focus back to Osama. It is illegal for the US to be in Iraq. The US is tresspassing and has made itself hated by the world in doing so. It's about oil. It always has been about oil. That's why GWB could care less about N. Korea nukes-no oil there...

It does seem that as this was continues, more and more of the "coalition" is getting out, i don't blame them. I don't see anyone wanting to join up either. So bush shall lead america on anyway, with maybe half the population going along with him.
The first reason for the war seemed compelling, but didn't quite pan out as thought. Taking saddam out was a good idea while we were there anyway, but i think this could have been done without so much destruction. WHat are we on now...freeing the iraqi people...giving them democracy. Well, that they can surely do on their own, and ask for help if needed.

Going into a country and killing civilians is a thing that should never be done without a very good reason, and what IS the reason?I guess the logic goes that by killing them there, they can't come here and kill us. I don't follow that logic. My logic tells me that when you , as a nation and not a band of lunatics, go into a country and kill innocent civilians, you are making more people angry enough to want to join a band of lunatics. THere are enough lunatics in the world, we don't need to make more.

Hopefully the kiwis learned somethings that can benefit their forces for the future, so at least it was not in vain.

BTW..i'm still hunting for the good news stories. I've found a few where the troops were helping kids play soccer and they give them things like crayons, but even those troops felt that that is not really the work they should be doing. Giving kids crayons is always a good way to brighten up their world, but i think their world would be so much better if they were not living in a war zone. IF we pulled out now, there would probably be some fighting among the iraqi's, but it's their country. THere is a lot of killing in this country, how can we stop it there, especially if we are doing a lot of it?

So let me get this straight. You're comparing America to Germany under the Nazis, the USSR during the cold war, Iraq under Saddam's control, and finally Ham-mas, Islamic Jihad, etc. I think you left out a few, what about France under Napoleon, Italy under Mussolini, Japan under whoever there emperor was during WW2, and Russia under Stalin. But why stop there, why not the Romans under Nero, the Huns under Attila, the Greeks under Alexander,what about Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, The British under George III, Henry VIII etc. ((*)(*)(*)(*) ran out of tyrants). Why not any ruthless dictator whoever lived.

I believe that your analogies are false. I think that America is better than the examples you site. We are a country based on freedom, liberty, and democracy. When our people consent to our governments will it is really our will. In America, the people are sovereign, not some dictator. Yet in all of the examples you referred to, the people were controlled by a tyrannical government. If you honestly believe that we are no better than they, then I have wasted my time responding to you.

Your post would be very funny if i didn't think you actually believed it. If you think the the UN is even remotely capable of cleaning up the "mess" in Iraq, you are sadly mistaken. Ask anyone who lives in the Balkans, Rwanda, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Haiti or any other UN disaster (too many to mention). They will be sure to tell you how effective the UN was in protecting the civilian population from terrorists, insurgents, or criminal gangs. But you're right, lets leave Iraq to the UN. If we do that I'm sure Al Sadr, Zarquawi, and like scumbags will suddenly bow to the UN and become important players in the peace process. And then on that day monkeys will also be flying out of my ass.

Logo,

I hate to be the one to tell you this, buddy, but the UN has no teeth. It has no capability to fix anything even remotely involving violence. It was established as a clearing house for the world; basically a place for nations to get together and debate and negotiate. Beyond that, however, it is utterly useless. Do you think they'll be able to negotiate with al Sadr and Zarquawi? No, of course not. Thus, they are utterly and completely useless.

"But the rest of the world will send in military forces, right!?"

Wrong. European countries such as France and Germany have sizeable military forces, but they are entirely designed for defense. The Germans (who have an army of approx. 200,000) recently reported that they were incapable of supporting an international force larger than 2,000. That is, in a word or two, utterly pathetic. That's what happens when you listen to he liberals who want to cut our military budget down and make us a mirror of the pseudo-socialist European nations.

Leonides...i am a female and we don't usually call each other buddy, but thats okay (it just felt funny being referred to that way, thats what i call my son sometimes), and i'm not sure if it was my post you were referring to...i didn't mention the UN. I do not think of the UN as the body it was set up to be anymore, you're right, it has no teeth, or it has it's teeth in the wrong places.
Maybe this iraqi adventure would be a good time to fix the UN. (but i'm not holding my breath)