IRAQ !! was it a waste of time ?

[KFC]

Very true, you've touched on a number of points.

 

Many have also gained a vast amount of experience fighting in Syria and other conflicts in the region, which would have been far more valuable than anything they would of learnt in the classroom...! After the fall of Saddam, i was under the impression that the remains of the Iraq forces still there were dismantled. Jobless, maybe bitterness, with some standard of knowledge would easily have been absorbed into most terrorist links. The other main issue with the region is Sunny and Shia tensions. Iraq, like Syria and Lebanon. Both groups do not wish to be controlled by the other!

Agreed, the west keeps on about spreading democracy and finding political solutions but these are tribal societies. Even having had elections the tribes are still warring, always have and always will.

 

Western arrogance is gobsmacking.

 

Oh! so now the US wants to talk to Iran :wacko:

Edited June 16, 2014 by KFC

[kdubya]

ISIS originates from Al Qaeda in Iraq, who were ironically predominantly Syrian militants. The civil war in Syria has benefited them massively in terms of funding and recruitment, and so they are now filling the power vacuum left in Iraq after the US combat troops withdrawal.

 

As I see it, the real danger now is that radical groups across the middle east and north and sub saharan Africa will be emboldened to rise against weakened and fragmented post Arab-spring governments.

 

We and the US have a lot to answer for in this by destabilising the region through our intervention in Iraq in 2003. The challenge we now face is in building consensus with the stable regimes in the area capable of real power brokering, namely Iran and Israel. This is difficult enough without Russian gamesmanship, not to mention the much more subtle and insidious influence China is beginning to assert via interests in African and Arab mineral resources.

 

Once again, the world pivots on the middle east.

Do we really believe this is all caused by taking Saddam out? if so then the tooth fairy does exist,true Saddam kept his house in order (usually with the aid of gas and the disappearance of dissidents) but what is going on now in Iraq, Syria, Egypt,, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Libya Yemen, and god knows where next?It is nothing to do with destabilisation?

 

Its to do with the ever increasing threat of radicalisation and the incessant march for a 14th century state by those who exploited our unease at telling it as it is in these days of a cotton wool airy fairy PC world we have been hypnotised into accepting, to the point we dare not even talk about the subject,and we cant call savages savages (crucifixion anyone I see that is back on the agenda) and as much as I detest Blair I agree with his sentiment that we may wish to keep out of it but ISIS will push till we wont be able to.

 

KW

Edited June 16, 2014 by kdubya

[keg]

Agreed, the west keeps on about spreading democracy and finding political solutions but these are tribal societies. Even having had elections the tribes are still warring, always have and always will.

 

Western arrogance is gobsmacking.

 

Oh! so now the US wants to talk to Iran :wacko:

Agreed. The US have never had any idea of foreign policy because they have never had to!

 

They assume that every (as they see it) backward nation wants their type of democracy.

[poontang]

 

 

They assume that every (as they see it) backward nation wants their type of democracy.

 

 

[ditchman]

so you shoot pigeons with a 4 Bore !!......that aint sporting....

[kdubya]

Agreed. The US have never had any idea of foreign policy because they have never had to!

 

They assume that every (as they see it) backward nation wants their type of democracy.

Its not so much they want to see their type of democracy, its simply the fact they and our leaders refuse to believe that the middle east still needs another several hundred years of evolution, to get to "our supposedly higher western values" problem is they have modern weapons and with modern transport the ability to reach us with their 14th century ideology, this is not going to end well at all.

 

KW

[clakk]

the whole middle east is now an unstable timebomb ticktocking its way to the 3rd world war.religion has split this region forever.christian v muslim in the crusades and now sunni verses shia verses everbody.forget the root causes of this goes back centurys .its not going away and we will get drawn in sooner or later .isis train militants and when they come home they,l still feel angry and mistrustful of the christian majority.what happens when they decide to impose sharia law through the AK rather than the ballot box.our army is being gutted along with all the services by politicians and they hope reservists will pull their nutts out of the fire theyved created .dont see a CHURCHILL or Duke of Wellington knocking about westminster these days.i hope for all our sakes these drongo,s get an agreement with IRAN to sort this out before it spreads across the middle east

[keg]

Its not so much they want to see their type of democracy, its simply the fact they and our leaders refuse to believe that the middle east still needs another several hundred years of evolution, to get to "our supposedly higher western values" problem is they have modern weapons and with modern transport the ability to reach us with their 14th century ideology, this is not going to end well at all.

 

KW

Yup, another good summary KW, have to agree with you.

[Spaniel]

My thoughts are yes if nothing is done to stop what's going on over there now

Now there are terrorists and there is still oil maybe why the usa are stepping in but the UK seem not to want to get involved....Iraq 1 was mostly sorted before any ground troops got involved

[Gimlet]

However we dress up the motives, when we alter by force (whether military or financial) the systems of government in sovereign states because we have decided they are the wrong systems, we "the west" are behaving purely and simply as unreconstructed imperialists. We have failed dismally to move on from the nineteenth century.

The financial opportunities which accrue from destabilising nations - controlling oil supplies, selling arms, lining our pockets from reconstruction racketeering - is good old fashioned economic imperialism. The presumption that our own systems of government and codes of behaviour are superior to other people's is cultural imperialism and the concomitant belief that this imagined superiority entitles us to forcibly change other societies to bring them in line with our own is moral imperialism.

We have no right to the belief that our greedy, destructive, materialistic way of life, controlled and administered by corporatism and a withered form of democracy and fuelled by brutalistic industrialism is the only way to live and the mode of existence to which the whole of mankind must aspire, by force if necessary. It is a repellent attitude which makes us little better than the medieval Islamist we're supposed to be fighting.

[overandunder2012]

looks like its really kicking of thank got we are out, our own somalia so to speak nobody wants a second go

Edited June 16, 2014 by overandunder2012

[Zapp]

Do we really believe this is all caused by taking Saddam out? if so then the tooth fairy does exist,true Saddam kept his house in order (usually with the aid of gas and the disappearance of dissidents) but what is going on now in Iraq, Syria, Egypt,, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Libya Yemen, and god knows where next?It is nothing to do with destabilisation?

 

Its to do with the ever increasing threat of radicalisation and the incessant march for a 14th century state by those who exploited our unease at telling it as it is in these days of a cotton wool airy fairy PC world we have been hypnotised into accepting, to the point we dare not even talk about the subject,and we cant call savages savages (crucifixion anyone I see that is back on the agenda) and as much as I detest Blair I agree with his sentiment that we may wish to keep out of it but ISIS will push till we wont be able to.

 

KW

 

<long reply discusssing middle eastern socio-politics and the nature of insurgency and radicalisation deleted>

 

Yep, you're right. Its all because they took Love Thy Neighbour off the telly and there arent gollywogs on marmalade jars anymore. Peecee gone mad/I blame the younguns/someone should do something etc etc.

 

Not biting today, sorry

[birdsallpl]

I'm quite amazed that with all 85 posts no one has seriously mentioned the original concern of weapons of mass destruction for the start of the 2nd go in Iraq. I think one post said not that old chestnut again or something similar. I know the joe public consensus is that WMD was a big con and never really existed as such. But in my book if there is any inclination that it may be a possibility, we have to invade to make sure one way or the other. The real fear must be a despot dictator ruling a very unsettled area and building up the weapons and army that could create a real problem for the world. Saddam fitted the bill perfectly.

If we had had a better result in Korea in the fifties we wouldn't now be worried about the little chappie in North Korea. We must learn from history and previous events. If we had invaded Germany in 1932 when Hitler started his little game and broke all the disarmament agreements the 2nd world war would never have happened. I get a little frustrated that there is so much criticism about what our country and our allies have tried to do to protect us all. Yes we have made mistakes, but surely we must recognise all the good things. We will never know exactly what goes on and neither should we. We must put our trust in these people.

[Zapp]

I'm quite amazed that with all 85 posts no one has seriously mentioned the original concern of weapons of mass destruction for the start of the 2nd go in Iraq. I think one post said not that old chestnut again or something similar. I know the joe public consensus is that WMD was a big con and never really existed as such. But in my book if there is any inclination that it may be a possibility, we have to invade to make sure one way or the other. The real fear must be a despot dictator ruling a very unsettled area and building up the weapons and army that could create a real problem for the world. Saddam fitted the bill perfectly.

If we had had a better result in Korea in the fifties we wouldn't now be worried about the little chappie in North Korea. We must learn from history and previous events. If we had invaded Germany in 1932 when Hitler started his little game and broke all the disarmament agreements the 2nd world war would never have happened. I get a little frustrated that there is so much criticism about what our country and our allies have tried to do to protect us all. Yes we have made mistakes, but surely we must recognise all the good things. We will never know exactly what goes on and neither should we. We must put our trust in these people.

 

The problem with that, aside from the fact that countries dont have a unilateral right to invade other sovereign nations without UN backing, is that our ability to avoid big messes like Iraq is only as good as our intelligence and our politician's having purely benign intentions.

To follow that argument would doom us to endless horrific military adventures, and we should really start with North Korea, which always fitted the bill far better than Iraq, having a proven WMD program and a repeatedly stated willingness to use them.

[kdubya]

 

<long reply discusssing middle eastern socio-politics and the nature of insurgency and radicalisation deleted>

 

Yep, you're right. Its all because they took Love Thy Neighbour off the telly and there arent gollywogs on marmalade jars anymore. Peecee gone mad/I blame the younguns/someone should do something etc etc.

 

Not biting today, sorry

And that is exactly the problem, IE you see it as a joke (cant blame you that's the conditioning you have had) and have sense that this is not really happening,and the comment is just racist detritus, problem is when you realise it was not said in jest , it will be to late to bite, as you will have been bitten first, and well and truly bitten at that.

 

 

 

KW

[thepasty]

waste of time, money and lives?

 

yes

 

we should have left well alone.

we should really start with North Korea, which always fitted the bill far better than Iraq, having a proven WMD program and a repeatedly stated willingness to use them.

 

 

Thats exactly why we'd never touch them, they can fight back and are fully prepared to do something stupid.

[kdubya]

waste of time, money and lives?

 

yes

 

we should have left well alone.

Or finished the job under bush senior, we will end up going back in like it or not, I believe its already unstoppable.

 

KW

[Zapp]

Thats exactly why we'd never touch them, they can fight back and are fully prepared to do something stupid.

 

[spanj]

ISIS originates from Al Qaeda in Iraq, who were ironically predominantly Syrian militants. The civil war in Syria has benefited them massively in terms of funding and recruitment, and so they are now filling the power vacuum left in Iraq after the US combat troops withdrawal.

 

As I see it, the real danger now is that radical groups across the middle east and north and sub saharan Africa will be emboldened to rise against weakened and fragmented post Arab-spring governments.

 

We and the US have a lot to answer for in this by destabilising the region through our intervention in Iraq in 2003. The challenge we now face is in building consensus with the stable regimes in the area capable of real power brokering, namely Iran and Israel. This is difficult enough without Russian gamesmanship, not to mention the much more subtle and insidious influence China is beginning to assert via interests in African and Arab mineral resources.

 

Once again, the world pivots on the middle east.

 

Its where it all started boys and very likely will be the cause of the end too

[spanj]

Yup, another good summary KW, have to agree with you.

+1

[Gimlet]

 

 

 

Thats exactly why we'd never touch them, they can fight back and are fully prepared to do something stupid.

 

And they've got no oil, they not in a strategically important part of the world and their best/only friend is China. Not the sort of war that dreams and profits are made from.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Gimlet

[overandunder2012]

I'm quite amazed that with all 85 posts no one has seriously mentioned the original concern of weapons of mass destruction for the start of the 2nd go in Iraq. I think one post said not that old chestnut again or something similar. I know the joe public consensus is that WMD was a big con and never really existed as such. But in my book if there is any inclination that it may be a possibility, we have to invade to make sure one way or the other. The real fear must be a despot dictator ruling a very unsettled area and building up the weapons and army that could create a real problem for the world. Saddam fitted the bill perfectly.

If we had had a better result in Korea in the fifties we wouldn't now be worried about the little chappie in North Korea. We must learn from history and previous events. If we had invaded Germany in 1932 when Hitler started his little game and broke all the disarmament agreements the 2nd world war would never have happened. I get a little frustrated that there is so much criticism about what our country and our allies have tried to do to protect us all. Yes we have made mistakes, but surely we must recognise all the good things. We will never know exactly what goes on and neither should we. We must put our trust in these people.

it was a load of ******** just a way of duping the public into putting up with their activities sadam would never have had any weapons that could threaten the uk in his wildest dreams

Edited June 16, 2014 by overandunder2012

[kdubya]

it was a load of ******** just a way of duping the public into putting up with their activities sadam would never have had any weapons that could threaten the uk in his wildest dreams

nice bit of reading here.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

 

KW

[overandunder2012]

any of that likely to hit the uk anything with that kind of range?

[kdubya]

any of that likely to hit the uk anything with that kind of range?

Oh dear, you dont need have an ICBM to get biological or nuclear weapons to us, you only have to carry it in and step off the tube at Westminster bridge, think its impossible? think again.

 

KW