100th soldier killed in Iraq [Archive]

timo

31-01-2006, 10:33

One imagines that there will be many more British soldiers killed in Iraq in the name of a neo-conservative attempt to foist Western liberal democratic values and norms upon the mutually hostile ethnic groups of the former Mesopotamia. Many more families will grieve before the crusading Tomfools at Downing Street and in the White House realise the error of their ways.

Many more British lives will be lost in southern Afghanistan too, as over three thousand unfortunate Paratroopers are to be sent to that graveyard of British armies. Sadly, we are ruled by a rather Cromwellian Prime Minister and his government of 'croppy boys' [and girls], who think Britain 'a young country', ridicule tradition and do not appear to learn the lessons of their Grandfathers. They should remember what is known as 'The First Afghan War' of 1838. The same conceited, deluded boasts from military commanders ,quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, about the 'superior equipment' of the British Army were made back then, when The Army of the Indus marched proudly into the gaunt Afghan hills. In 1842, there remained one sole survivor of the Kabul army of 9,500 Crown and Company troops and 38,000 camp followers- Surgeon Brydon, Army Medical Corps. The fate of some of the wounded makes the senses reel, where live castration of enemy prisoners was a sign of forebearance amongst the Pathan tribesmen. Their descendants are no less fiercesome and militarily capable as the Soviets discovered in the late seventies. Certainly, the tribesmen have always fought incessantly among themselves, and perhaps always will, but they will eventually form alliances against the British, whom they have learned not to trust. Unlike Blair and Bush, the Afghans , and particularly the Pathans, do learn the lessons of their Grandfathers. Eventually, the cry will go up that Britain has outstayed its welcome, that the Poppy-growing economy is being damaged, that Britain and America intend to establish a permanent foothold in the 'North West Frontier'. The Parachute Regiment, even though it may be amongst the toughest on the planet, will not be able to subdue its foes. Even now, military leaders admit that they know not whom to trust, in a country which is supposed to be supportive of the British presence in the 'War against Terror'. The Paratroopers, like their one-time American counterparts in Vietnam, will not be able to tell friend from foe, tribe from tribe , Taliban from their elbow etc.

As I never tire of repeating, there is much to be said for the paleo-conservative philosophy of 'minding one's own business'. Foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests alone. I cannot see how military intervention in Iraq and [of all God-forsaken lands] Afghanistan is in British national interests. There is much to say for learning the lessons of one's Grandfathers. The invasion of Afghanistan [for that is how it shall eventually come to be regarded by the indigenous tribes] will prove utterly disastrous.

As for the 'retreat from Kabul' of 1838, which I refer to, though it is largely forgotten in Britain it is vividly recalled and sometimes celebrated in Afghanistan. In 1960, following the army's route from Kabul to Jalalabad with Afghan companions, the historian James Morris found a great many people eager to point out the sites of the tragedy, and recall with pride ancestral tales of 'glory' [in truth it was a massacre]. Morris asked one patriarch what would happen if a foreign army invaded the country. 'The same', hissed the old man. Ask the Soviets.

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 10:36

News this morning of another British soldier killed in Iraq.

This brings the number of British subjects killed in this illegal war to 100.

Mr Prime Minister: How do you sleep?

I have often wondered this myself. One possibility is that he has a lawyer's facility to explain uncomfortable facts away, even to himself, so that they soon get lost in a miasma of obfuscation and self-serving bluster. Another possibility is that he has such a massive ego and is so self-centred that he has a cast iron conviction that he is always right. Yet another possibility is that his equally morally purblind wife lavishes emotional and moral support on him whenever any pangs of self-doubt set in. And yet another is that he does not really devote much time to thinking about casualties, at least not in relation to the pain, suffering and grief attendant upon these. It should be remembered that since he took office in 1997, he has engaged British armed forces in more armed conflicts than any Prime Minister since 1945. If truth be told, he probably likes the excitement and drama associated with military action. He certainly likes strutting on the world stage as a leading player. He probably sleeps very well.

scottf

31-01-2006, 10:43

This ain't blairs war- this is bush's war!!!

Ousetunes

31-01-2006, 10:54

As I never tire of repeating, there is much to be said for the paleo-conservative philosophy of 'minding one's own business'. Foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests alone. I cannot see how military intervention in Iraq and [of all God-forsaken lands] Afghanistan is in British national interests. There is much to say for learning the lessons of one's Grandfathers. The invasion of Afghanistan [for that is how it shall eventually come to be regarded by the indigenous tribes] will prove utterly disastrous.

Could someone kindly engrave this magnificent paragraph in brass, frame it and send it to number 10 Downing Street, complete with little brass curtain rod and pair of red curtains?

Upon its televised opening, I shall be clapping my hands in merriment (with a swelling, sickly feeling of bile rising in my stomach).

Timo, spot on as per.

Twiglet

31-01-2006, 10:55

BBC news have managed to get the time wrong. 0834 local time isn't 1134 GMT, they're three hours ahead so it actually happened at 0534 GMT.

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 11:06

Could someone kindly engrave this magnificent paragraph in brass, frame it and send it to number 10 Downing Street, complete with little brass curtain rod and pair of red curtains?

Upon its televised opening, I shall be clapping my hands in merriment (with a swelling, sickly feeling of bile rising in my stomach).

Timo, spot on as per.

Yes indeed, another first class post by Timo. Neither Blair nor Bush has any understanding of modern history, or of the complexities of modern events and circumstances, or of the unpredictability of military interventions. If they did, they would be far less inclined to meddle in foreign affairs, or to put their militaries in harms way in hare-brained foreign adventures. Its a pity we can't make modern history a compulsory subject for aspiring PMs and Presidents (together with a year's compulsory military service, preferably involving personal experience of the realities of warfare and of 'collateral damage').

timo

31-01-2006, 11:08

Ousetunes,
Cheers, old fruit. It gives me no pleasure at all to say such things. To be honest, I am worried about Iraq, but even more so for our troops in southern Afghanistan. God help any who fall into the hands of hostile tribesmen. Life is so cheap there, and revenge [or 'badal'] always cruel and condign.

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 11:14

Unfortunately, this advice from Kipling may soon have a contemporary resonance.

'When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier'.

Foreign troops have always been like a red rag to a bull to Afghans, and there is a distinct possibility that this intervention will exacerbate rather than calm the situation.

shoeshine

31-01-2006, 11:16

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 11:22

Let's not forget that Blair's son Euan is doing his bit for our Country!

Yesterday he started a "year out" as an "Intern" in the Corridors of Power in Washington. :rant:

What better way can the Blairs illustrate their committment to our nation :confused:

I have noticed before how remarkably protective the Blairs are of their own offspring. I use the word remarkable here because there is a glaring disparity between their obsessive concern with keeping their own children out of harm's way and the recklessness Blair displays in putting others in harm's way - not just British troops, but also civilians caught up in his serial bombing campaigns (of which there have been many child victims, either killed or maimed for life).

timo

31-01-2006, 11:40

My dear Lord Chaverly,
You beat me to it with the Kipling poem! LOL. This might serve to swell the rumour that we are clones!

AtticusFinch

31-01-2006, 11:43

War is arrogant leaders making decisions on behalf of greed or big business, and to massage their own egos. Thousands of ordinary people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go to war then have to die. It's always the little people who suffer.

Slightly off-topic, but this is why I always wince when I hear Daily Mail types saying that the solution to the "descending teenage lawlessness" is to bring back national service. If you join the armed forces, you're putting your complete trust in that if the government does send you to war, it will be for a legitimate cause. Can that really be said about Iraq? If I was a teenager and was being forced to Iraq in order to further line the pockets of Halliburton and their ilk, I'd be livid. :rant:

shoeshine

31-01-2006, 11:44

My dear Lord Chaverly,
You beat me to it with the Kipling poem! LOL. This might serve to swell the rumour that we are clones!

No he just buys the same Cakes & Buns:thumbsup:

Tony

31-01-2006, 11:51

Whilst I appreciate you can't put a price on a person's life, am I the only person who is wondering whether we can - as a country - actually afford this war?

Is it a coincidence that there's no money left in the pensions pot, that the NHS is struggling to balance its finances and that the general cost of living in this country is rising all the time?

I feel the government is bleeding this country dry! Higher taxes, less investment in the things that should be of priority to the people of this country and raiding of Lottery Funds etc.

Yet, the anger only really starts to ferment when one thinks of the families whose lives have been shattered by the needless and totally wasteful loss of a loved one's life due to Tony Blair's posturing with (and on behalf of) Mr Bush.

Gordon Brown tells us to celebrate our Britishness.

Good idea Gordon. I'll raise a glass to our government doing the right thing and having the balls to bring our boys back home.

Our "Britishness" also extends to helping out other nations. We have a long and proud history of this, and yes, that extends to the ultimate option of war and the giving up of lives.

Anyone who joins the Armed Forces does so in the full knowledge that they forgo any right to question where they are sent, and what they will be asked to do. That includes being in positions where you are in mortal danger and may give up your life. Be thankful there there are young people who are prepared to do this for others.

I have to generally agree with KenH - the aim of the war was regime change and that has been achieved. It's a shame that it was ill thought out. There is a whole other discussion about that, but that's for another time, place and thread.

In time the country will hopefully settle to a more peaceful and prosperous existence than they had before under Husain's. Painful upheaval is often necessary in order to reach the ambition of a nation run by and for it's people. Iraq will no doubt one day achieve that. It is our responsibility help on that path, and accept the sacrifices that go with it. These are the difficult decisions that leaders have to make.

There may be another 100 British deaths before Iraq can return to peace. There may be a thousand.

The UK cannot simply walk away, for that would be a cowardly and despicable act against the Iraqi people.

timo

31-01-2006, 12:09

Maybe the 'Daily Mail types' are wrong about national service as a solution to what they might term 'the yob culture'. Nevertheless, I have heard not a few tales from ex-national servicemen to the ends that they benefited greatly from 'the sense of purpose', the discipline and the experience of mixing with fellows from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds. My own late father thought the experience a complete waste of time. Stationed with the REME in hostile, dangerous Bicester [near Oxford] he was practically driven mad with boredom, and resented the harsh discipline and rigid rules/timetables of military life. 'They even tell you what time to have a ****', were his elegant appraisal of the lost years in the heart of darkness that was 1950s Oxfordshire. My late father-in-law, by sharp contrast, loved every minute, travelling to Germany, Hong Kong and Kenya with the Border Regiment.

I quite agree with Daley. Were I in the forces, I too would deeply resent being sent to Iraq. Obviously, one signs up with the knowledge that one may be required to engage in combat, to kill [rather than indulge in the 'water-skiing and travel' of the old Monty Python sketch]. However, I would find it hard to be enthusiastic about my role in such a hopeless, pointless 'cause'. Soldiers surely require firm objectives to work to, not some vague idea that 'we' are paving the way for 'democracy' and fighting a 'war on terror'. Morale cannot possibly be good?

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 12:11

[QUOTE=Tony]the aim of the war was regime change QUOTE]

That's simply not true.

You can't get away with re-inventing history so blatantly I'm afraid, anyone else remember 45mins?

Edit:to make the point clear

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 12:21

No he just buys the same Cakes & Buns:thumbsup:

I am always pleased to dine at the same table as Timo - its a fine table! :thumbsup:

Tony

31-01-2006, 12:22

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 12:28

Disco_Cat, you are utterly wrong. Regime change HAS been achieved. You will have to be a bit more patient to see the outcome, and in that time people will be killed.

It's not as easy as turning on Sky News or jotting a quick note on an internet forum.

Real Generals have to do a bit more than Armchair Generals.

Tony, with all due respect, I think your recent memory is failing you here. In the run up to the Iraq war, both Bush and Balir made it clear that any military action would not be about regime change - it was about ridding Iraq of 'weapons of mass destruction'. If you consult the historical records, you will find statements by Balir cleary indicating that Saddam could stay in power as long as WMD were destroyed, thereby removing the threat of WMD. Regime change, as a publicly stated goal, was an ex-post facto rationalisation, consequent upon the failure to find WMD.

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 12:31

Disco_Cat, you are utterly wrong. Regime change HAS been achieved. You will have to be a bit more patient to see the outcome, and in that time people will be killed.

It's not as easy as turning on Sky News or jotting a quick note on an internet forum.

Real Generals have to do a bit more than Armchair Generals.

In the run up to the Iraq war I do not recall Tony Blair ever saying the aim was regime change, if it was then the war was illegal.

We were sold this war on the grounds that Iraq at Weapons of Mass destruction capable of hitting UK troops within 45minutes from the order being given.
Out of interest Tony do you have any friends or family putting their life on the line for New Labour?

Tony

31-01-2006, 12:42

Tony, with all due respect, I think your recent memory is failing you here. In the run up to the Iraq war, both Bush and Balir made it clear that any military action would not be about regime change - it was about ridding Iraq of 'weapons of mass destruction'. If you consult the historical records, you will find statements by Balir cleary indicating that Saddam could stay in power as long as WMD were destroyed, thereby removing the threat of WMD. Regime change, as a publicly stated goal, was an ex-post facto rationalisation, consequent upon the failure to find WMD.
That may be so, but for the Iraqi people regime change was certainly the point. Let's be grown up and realistic about this - politicians are lying, ambitious, duplicitous cheats, always have been, and always will be. Regime change was always the aim, if not publicly stated for political reasons.

However, to quote myself from another thread...retrospect is fools wisdom. You can call people to account for their past actions, but the history is just that. It's the past, gone, finished, done. We have to live in the here and now.

This is 2006, not 2003, and we currently have our armed forced in conflict with insurgents who are preventing normal Iraqi's having to a peaceful existence. That has to be dealt with, and it takes time and costs lives - British ones.

To requote myself from this thread...There may be another 100 British deaths before Iraq can return to peace. There may be a thousand.

The UK cannot simply walk away, for that would be a cowardly and despicable act against the Iraqi people.

Out of interest Tony do you have any friends or family putting their life on the line for New Labour?
Yes, and they are doing it because it goes with the job and for Iraqi's not New Labour. Your political dig is in very poor taste.

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 12:56

Yes, and they are doing it because it goes with the job and for Iraqi's not New Labour. Your political dig is in very poor taste.

I'm sorry to hear that, I have friends in Iraq at them moment and I know how hard it is.

It is not a cheap dig at all. Iraq is a mess and needs a totally radical re-think, but Tony Blair won't do that because he is putting his position ahead of the safety of our troops.

If he had a shred of dignity he would resign immediately along with all the New labour flunkies who put heir careers ahead of principle and supported this war.

We are in Iraq to make it possible for US companies to bleed the countries oil dry and send the profits straight to Texas.

US and UK troops and interests should withdraw and be replaced by UN peace keeping force, but for that too happen Tony Blair is going to have to admit he made a mistake and that would be too harmful to New Labour.

Tony

31-01-2006, 13:06

Ah! Now we've stopped making out of date historical political points we're making progress :)

I agree with a large part of what you say there, though whether the UN could do any better is a moot point. It may make it worse. The politics would be more pleasant to sleep on though. And as I said before, it is always possible to call people to account for past actions. Hussein is finding that out now.

timo

31-01-2006, 13:10

Disco Cat,
You are 100% correct here regarding Blair's justification for British military intervention in Iraq. It was in order to prevent the use of 'weapons of mass destruction' by the then Iraqi regime. At the time, both Blair and Bush kept repeating the wretched phrase on television like the refrain of a ballad. In reality, the 'weapons of mass destruction' amounted to six 'Little Demon' Bangers purchased from Baghdad Home Stores by Saddam, left over from Bonfire Night. A few 'Sparklers' were allegedly found in Uday's possession, and 'Chemical Ali' had a couple of 'Jumping Jacks' hidden away in a draw.

As to whether Blair has any friends or family 'putting their lives on the line' in Iraq, I think it more likely that they would put their lives on line for Bulgar Wheat in the Islington branch of Waitrose.

Zafar

31-01-2006, 13:15

That may be so, but for the Iraqi people regime change was certainly the point. Let's be grown up and realistic about this - politicians are lying, ambitious, duplicitous cheats, always have been, and always will be. Regime change was always the aim, if not publicly stated for political reasons.

However, to quote myself from another thread...You can call people to account for their past actions, but the history is just that. It's the past, gone, finished, done. We have to live in the here and now.

This is 2006, not 2003, and we currently have our armed forced in conflict with insurgents who are preventing normal Iraqi's having to a peaceful existence. That has to be dealt with, and it takes time and costs lives - British ones.

To requote myself from this thread...

Yes, and they are doing it because it goes with the job and for Iraqi's not New Labour. Your political dig is in very poor taste.

Tony,

You're right, we are living in 2006.
Change in itself is not the point for the Iraqi people. Change can be for the better or it can be for the worse, and in this particular instance I think its difficult to look for a positive (aside from the usual quip about we've managed to get rid of a dictator).

Aside from the simple indictors such as:
More people are being killed than under Saddam's rule, both through the insurgency and the 'counter' insurgency.
People are being kidnapped and tortured by the so called democractically elected govt (the last reported instance were the civilians found in the basement of the interior ministry building in Baghdad)
Less electricity than under Saddam
Less clean water than under Saddam
Less oil being pumped out.
etc etc etc

Its when you look at the bigger picture that the really disaster becomes clear.
We've basically removed a secular govt, and replaced it with a 'fundamentalist' Shia Govt, which has v close ties with its neighbour in Iran.

When you look at the so called peace in the south (ignoring the attacks against the troops), what has basically happened is that the British Troops have relinquished control to the Shia militia's, who are unleashing torture, kidnappings and murdering their opposition (Sunni, Secular, anyone who doesn't agree with their brand of Shia theocracy). Alot of these militia's are controlled by Mr Sadr (remember him ?)

The Yanks are now desperate to get out and hail everything a success, but the reality on the ground is that we've created a Shia theocracy which is going to haunt our National Interests in years to come. Much more so than Saddam ever could have.

We have to hold people to account for their actions. We cant simply ignore them because we have other ongoing issues.

I do agree that we are in a dilemma, we're damned if wo do, and we're damned if we dont.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that if the reasons for taking an action are wrong then the results will generally be bad ?

Tony

31-01-2006, 13:23

Let's be honest though, if you placed a bet on WMD's you would have put your shirt on them turning up.

Zafar, you're right. It just takes time. That time will be painful. Let's hope it works out. :(

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 13:25

politicians are lying, ambitious, duplicitous cheats......... Regime change was always the aim, if not publicly stated for political reasons.

So by your own admission Tony Blair lied to the UN, his party and the public as a means of getting to start an illegal war? Crickey if only Blair had been this honest maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess.

So is he definitely telling us the truth now he's decided that it was all about regime change all along and Iraq never did have WMD,
or by the time we've sacrificed 200 troop to this madness and democracy hasn't blossomed will we have to accept a new reason as the motivation for this awful war.

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 13:27

Let's be honest though, if you placed a bet on WMD's you would have put your shirt on them turning up.

If you believed Blair, yes

If you believed the weapons inspectors, no

Tony

31-01-2006, 13:32

Disco, you seem to think that I'm supporting Blair, and I'm not. I'm merely facing the realities of the situation. Anything else is a sideshow.

You can change the Government, lock up Blair, whatever... but Iraq will still need sorting out.

AtticusFinch

31-01-2006, 13:47

Let's be honest though, if you placed a bet on WMD's you would have put your shirt on them turning up

I disagree. If Blair and Bush were so convinced that there were WMDs, why not have let the weapons inspectors finish their job?

I think they knew there were no WMDs, and that's why they threw in the 45 minute claim. The only way to justify cutting short UN weapons inspectors that they'd commissioned was to claim that there was an immediate threat. Of course, the 45 minute claim turned out to be referring only to battlefield mortars, but that conveniently never gets talked about now either. :(

redrobbo

31-01-2006, 13:51

If we "stop the war" then I presume this means all foreign troops leave the country. Wouldn't that just mean far more deaths?

I am one of the minority who believe the war was the right thing to do, but qualify that by saying it needn't have been carried out with quite such a lack of competance, particularly on the part of the yanks. But regardless of whether you think the war was right or wrong, there must be some responsibility not to abandon the Iraqis before they are on their own feet and that is what we are doing. The American way seems to be to continue a war only as long as public opinion is on your side and then abandon things when it gets too difficult at home. Surely the British are more responsible and should ignore such public opinion until they can leave things in a fit state to continue without our troops.

I would like to echo these sentiments by KenH. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of going to war in Iraq, we are there, and we have a legal and moral duty to the vast majority of Iraqis to remain until their new, democractically elected government are in a position to fully govern their country for themselves.

The death of any British serviceman is saddening. British troops in Iraq are constantly exposed to death and injury, but that is not a reason for premature withdrawal. I post these views in the full knowledge that my partner's brother, a family man, is serving in Iraq.

Zafar

31-01-2006, 13:57

Let's be honest though, if you placed a bet on WMD's you would have put your shirt on them turning up.

Zafar, you're right. It just takes time. That time will be painful. Let's hope it works out. :(

Tony,

All we can do is hope....

The reason why I feel so passionately about punishing Blair is simply because it would be morally wrong to let a guy off the hook, who has through his actions caused so much damage, both to Iraqi's and to our own national interests.

History is full of nations who through the immoral actions of their leaders have had to pay the price of the actions.

I'm currently reading a book on Genghis Khan, and being a muslim I disagree with many muslims about how they view Genghis Khan.

He invaded the muslim world, because of the evil actions of one leader (who had Genghis's envoys decapitated and their heads sent back).

For that one evil, uncivilised and immoral act, millions paid with their lives.

I have two little boys who mean the world to me, and I would not want their future's jeopordised by the actions of our so called Leader and his 'sucking' upto the Neo-Cons.

By the way, I do believe the lots of people genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD's. The real scandal is that there has been no attempt to understand HOW the intelligence agencies of the West ALL seemed to think that was the case.

I'd be willing to bet that there was misinformation spread by Israel and its neo-con connections. I dont know what the odds are, and whether any investigation will ever be launched but either way its a scandal that there hasn't been any enquiries into this.

Now the same is being repeated in someways in regards to Iran.....

Z

KenH

31-01-2006, 14:46

Zafar

31-01-2006, 14:57

KenH

31-01-2006, 15:11

The so called terrorists had a problem with US Foreign policy, thats why they attacked the US. Unless you believe 'terrorism' is some random spontaneous fab that some people find 'hip' ?

By using the phrase "so called terrorists" are you suggesting that people who hijack an aircraft and crash it into a building are something else? Perhaps you have some sympathy for them?

I do think that there are people who find terrorism in some way "hip". The sorts of people who commit acts of terrorism do this for a whole host of reasons but usually it is because they have a screw loose. The mad scum who manage and control them will always manage to think of a reason even long after all the troops have left Iraq.

Zafar

31-01-2006, 15:31

By using the phrase "so called terrorists" are you suggesting that people who hijack an aircraft and crash it into a building are something else? Perhaps you have some sympathy for them?

I do think that there are people who find terrorism in some way "hip". The sorts of people who commit acts of terrorism do this for a whole host of reasons but usually it is because they have a screw loose. The mad scum who manage and control them will always manage to think of a reason even long after all the troops have left Iraq.

I say so called because the term is so politicised.
Its as if its become an ace that one can pull out in order to justify whatever they do.

If terrorism is the use of violence to further political means, then are we in the coalition any better, or perhaps worse than those heinous 'terrorists' ?

The US has by far a 'more successful' track records of terrorism.

Okay lets call the people 'xyz', does that in anyway change the reality ?

LordChaverly

31-01-2006, 15:31

But the invasion of Iraq made the 'war on terror' far more difficult to fight. Firstly, it all but exhausted the enormous fund of global goodwill towards the US as a result of 9/11. Secondly, it diverted a huge amount of military resources from Afghanistan, at a time when the war against the Taliban and Al Quaida was far from being decisively won. Thirdly, it provided a new theatre of conflict for anti-Western terror groups. Fourthly, it created or exacerbated conflicts between the US and other countries which have yet to heal. Fifthly, it diverted attention and resources away from combating the real 'war of terror', taking place in Western countries. Sixthly, it created new sources of resentment against the West in muslim countries and even, more significantly, in the muslim diaspora in the West. Iraq was the wrong target, at the wrong time and done for the wrong reasons.

Zafar

31-01-2006, 15:37

By using the phrase "so called terrorists" are you suggesting that people who hijack an aircraft and crash it into a building are something else? Perhaps you have some sympathy for them?

I do think that there are people who find terrorism in some way "hip". The sorts of people who commit acts of terrorism do this for a whole host of reasons but usually it is because they have a screw loose. The mad scum who manage and control them will always manage to think of a reason even long after all the troops have left Iraq.

and to say that they have a 'screw loose' is like burying your head in sand and denying reality. I've not seen a single medical report to say that they were mentally unstable, or certifiable (Even on the Neo-Con mouthpiece Fox News)

Whilst you like to bring back the Twin Towers into this debate, which by the way had NOTHING to do with Iraq, can you explain how some of the so called hijackers/terrorists/xyz (allegedly) turned up alive and well in the Middle East ?

shoeshine

31-01-2006, 15:44

Most of the posts on this subect seem to be:-

1. This war is illegal because ....
2. We should stop the war
3. It is making things dangerous for me/my children.

It may well be that all of the above are true, I don't much care. The fact is that there is a war and everyone would like to stop it as soon as possible. But you can't start something like this and then abandon things as soon as it starts to drag on a bit. I would ask the many people who are calling for an end to the war to explain how exactly this would be done?

I have no idea if things are more or less dangerous in the UK because of the war in Iraq. I do know that there wasn't a war in Iraq in September 2001 when terrorists killed thousands of people in the US. If we get a similar attack in the UK then we cannot assume it wouldn't have happened anyway. The terrorists involved will think of any justification and this year it is Iraq, next year it will be something else.

KenH

1. Of course the War is illegal
2. The War should be stopped
3. It is making things dangerous for me/my children.

Because of proposition No.1, Nos. 2 and 3 are obviously self-evident.

Are you surprised that your claim that most of the posts on this poll support these 3 propositions.

In the past, whilst at war 1914-18, 1939-45, all Members of our Military were the Nation's Children. They still are. And as stated elsewhere on this thread, so should they still be treated.

This folly of a Monumental Proportion should cease forthwith, the troops withdrawn and the Iraqis allowed to sort out the problem, whatever its outcome for them.

The USA went into South Vietnam in about 1964 to prevent Communism from the North Vietnam State taking it over. Young Americans, many unwillingly drafted into the Military, died there in their thousands, many more came home critically injured, and live with their injuries everyday even now. Every year, the Body Bag count went up an up until the American people themselves realised the futility of their Government's actions and demanded the folly stop.

After several years, the USA had to pull its troops and infrastructure out, and let North and South Vietman become a single Vietnam nation.

Vietnam survived, and the unification has been to its benefit in more recent years.

Iraq can and will do the same, subject to getting the meddling Foreign Powers out. Unified Iraq is unfortunately a "cobbled together" country, and this was a direct result of outside interference after WW1.

It will come to an accomodation within its borders, perhaps having to split into 3 Provinces again with a Federal Government to oversee the services for its people. That is for the Iraqi People to decide, not a no-hoper like Bush, and his cohort Blair.

Believe me, when the UK body bag count gets "high" enough, we shall have to pull out. Let's hope the Goons running the UK realise this now.

I am not holding my breath, but when the time comes, those involved in taking these decisions will have to submit to commonsense, or be reviled in the History of this Nation

KenH

31-01-2006, 15:45

have a 'screw loose' is like burying your head in sand and denying reality.

can you explain how some of the so called hijackers/terrorists/xyz (allegedly) turned up alive and well in the Middle East ?

I don't think we need a doctors certificate to tell us that someone who hijacks and aircraft and flys it into a building, or who blows themselves up on a bus, is in some way mad.

I can't tell you how the hijackers ended up live and well and living in the Bahamas because it is conspracy theory nonesense put about by the same kind of people who would tell you that the Holocaust was a myth and Hitler was a stand up comedian working for Mossad.

Zafar

31-01-2006, 15:52

I don't think we need a doctors certificate to tell us that someone who hijacks and aircraft and flys it into a building, or who blows themselves up on a bus, is in some way mad.

I can't tell you how the hijackers ended up live and well and living in the Bahamas because it is conspracy theory nonesense put about by the same kind of people who would tell you that the Holocaust was a myth and Hitler was a stand up comedian working for Mossad.

Do we need a Dr's certificate for someone who perceives threats that dont exist ? (Paranoia)
perhaps we need one when they end up killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians as a result of their Paranoia ?

If you can believe that a passport can survive the inferno of the twin towers and be found lying unscathed several blocks away, then its easy to believe anyone who tells you the sun rises from the east as being a conspiracy theorist ?

What confuses me somewhat is that you can use the attacks on the twin towers where 3000 people were killed, yet you seem to be quite easily condoning acts where tens of thousands are being killed...

and before you use the standard line, I'll pre-empt it by saying ALL human life is sacred (tanned or untanned)

What this has to do with the holocaust I dont know, but perhaps you think we're all anti-semites.

Again I'll help you by giving you another revelation. Arabs are semites too :)

AtticusFinch

31-01-2006, 16:03

The fact is that there is a war and everyone would like to stop it as soon as possible. But you can't start something like this and then abandon things as soon as it starts to drag on a bit. I would ask the many people who are calling for an end to the war to explain how exactly this would be done?

You're working on the assumption that the US and UK are more capable of bringing peace to Iraq than the Iraqis themselves. Why?

The continuing occupation is based on the patronising assumption that regardless of what happens, the Iraqis are not capable of governing themselves and the coalition forces are a safer bet to restore order. In essence, that's actually quite a racist viewpoint. "Those silly little arabs are so savage. They don't have our civilisation or culture, so it's up to us to look after them". This is the same outlook that the British empire used.

The entire history of Iraq is a catalogue of imperialism gone wrong. It was formerly occupied by the British empire, until the Iraqis managed to throw them out. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein himself became leader by a CIA-backed coup in the 1970s, and the US sold him plenty of weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

I don't believe that the US and UK are capable of bringing peace to Iraq, and I never have done. I think they're actually LESS capable of bringing calm than the Iraqis alone, especially as the US is so mistrusted in parts of the middle east. For this reason I'd support a complete and immediate withdrawal. Iraqi is unstable because of decades of imperialistic meddling, and you think the solution is further occupation?

Zafar

31-01-2006, 16:04

KenH

Some evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy theories.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

and highly sophisticated 'terrorists' who couldn't fill out application forms.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT

Z

timo

31-01-2006, 16:49

Daley,
I abhor the 'imperialist meddling' that has contributed towards the instability of Iraq as much as you do, but to blame foreign interventions alone is to engage in reductionist, unitary explanations. Regardless of colonial invasion, imperialism etc, the territory of the former Mesopotamia [like Afghanistan] had long been a land riven with ethnic and religious conflict.The grudges borne between rival groups are ancient and irremediable. I agree that only the indigenous, rival ethnic groups of Iraq can solve the problems [if they are not insoluble, as is the case with Northern Ireland], but they themselves have contributed towards them. It is not entirely the fault of erring former European colonial powers.

KenH

31-01-2006, 17:08

when they end up killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians as a result of their Paranoia ?.....

What confuses me somewhat is that you can use the attacks on the twin towers where 3000 people were killed, yet you seem to be quite easily condoning acts where tens of thousands are being killed...

I am not condoning the killing of anyone. I think the Americans in particular made of terrible mess of the war and the subsequent occupation in particular. The British Army generally makes someone a nice cup of tea in circumstances where the yanks would send in an air strike. I am just of the opinion that we should remove dictators and help the people, this is rather different to Imperialism. I also understand that the Iraqi government wish us to remain and that we will leave when asked, what could be wrong with that?

What this has to do with the holocaust I dont know, but perhaps you think we're all anti-semites.

I was mentioning that many of the sites that come up with these crackpot theories about September the 11th 2001 also tend to have other crackpot theories and Holocaust denial articles on them. My point is that the terrorists (for that is what we call people who use violence to terrorise people) killed thousands of people in the US without their being any justification regarding Iraq. This means that once we have all left Iraq they can use their old justification to carry on the attacks. They will always find such a justification.

redrobbo

31-01-2006, 17:22

1. Impeach Blair
2. Pull out UK Troops.
3. Let the Americans deal with it.

You have a problem with that solution ? We only went along as a coalition member, and several others have pulled out so why cant we ?
Z

I have a problem with this proposed solution.
1. Impeachment of a British Prime Minister has not been used since 1806 - 200 years ago. A group of MPs considered trying to impeach the Primine Minister in 2004, and their attempts came to nothing.
2. What does this achieve? It would be an abrogation of our current international obligations and legal duties.
3. A facile suggestion. It's the standard cry of those who feel that the USA should deal with all the world's problems. It's a recipe for creating an isolationist America.

Other coalition members have indeed withdrawn their trops. As they did not occupy Iraq alongside British & American troops, they did not fulfil the international obligations and legal duties of an occupying force.

timo

31-01-2006, 17:40

KenH's remark that 'the British Army generally makes someone a cup of tea in circumstances where the yanks would send in an air strike' made me smile to myself. I do not imagine the British Army made many nice cups of tea for the Mau Mau in Kenya, or for the Communists in Malaya, and I very much doubt whether opponents in Borneo, the Falklands or Northern Ireland were invited to partake of Earl Grey. I cannot imagine Colonel 'Mad Mitch' Mitchell of the Argyles offering cups of PG Tipps and Gypsy Creams in Aden either. In what has become known as the 'First Gulf War' [or the first 'simulated, hyper-real' war, according to Jean Baudrillard], it was British Tank units, together with units of the French Foreign Legion, which were at the spearpoint of the assault upon Saddam Hussain's pathetic Republican Guard, not the Americans.

Far from making hot infusions of Indian/Chinese leaves, the British Army has often won conflicts that the Americans would have surely lost by means of taking fast, brutal, uncompromising action. More often than not, it is the British Army that is called upon for the 'serious stuff' [previous reference to 1st Gulf War], whilst the Americans have their charming 'Coffee and Danish' breaks, or eat things called 'Muffins'.

Tony

31-01-2006, 18:04

Disco_Cat

31-01-2006, 18:05

3. A facile suggestion. It's the standard cry of those who feel that the USA should deal with all the world's problems.

What about just letting them deal with the ones they create?

Kthebean

31-01-2006, 18:26

I tend to agree with timo in his last two points.

Throughout the war and even now, there seems to be a black-and-white view taken by many anti-war people (particularly the young) that everything was ok until america messed it all up - not exactly true! Also there seems to be this idea that colonialism is to blame for everything - almost as abhorrent as saying it's not to blame for anything and all it did was help backwards countries to civilisation!

The young people seem to hate america so much that they forget that, as sel-interested Britains, we should be thanking our lucky stars that america (as opposed to russia, for example) is the global superpower, and quaking in our boots at the thought of China over-taking them.

Twiglet

31-01-2006, 18:55

Well that's perhaps a slight misrepresentation of what KenH said.

The British Army has a reputation for knowing when to strike and when to avoid conflict and put the kettle on for bit of good old fashioned diplomacy. I give you Sierra Leone as an example. Soft hats in Basra is another.

It also has a reputation for going into conflicts with a plan of what to do afterwards - unlike the Americans.

The British public are being grossly mislead about the current situation in Basra. They may intially have gone in with 'soft hats' but recently the situation has regressed back into an almost all out war. They certainly aren't putting the kettle on and the days of the greeting children out on the streets are gone. It's an extremely volatile situation and over the coming weeks it is likely to get worse. Morale is terrible and the majority of those serving are desperate to come home. They feel that they are carrying out a pointless and thankless task (And this was at the weekend before the tragic deaths over the last two days).

Tony

31-01-2006, 19:31

I generally agree with you on those points Twiglet. I was making the point about soft hats in another context though.

Basra is indeed not much fun these days. Walking away from it isn't the answer though :(

Zafar

01-02-2006, 08:46

I have a problem with this proposed solution.
1. Impeachment of a British Prime Minister has not been used since 1806 - 200 years ago. A group of MPs considered trying to impeach the Primine Minister in 2004, and their attempts came to nothing.
2. What does this achieve? It would be an abrogation of our current international obligations and legal duties.
3. A facile suggestion. It's the standard cry of those who feel that the USA should deal with all the world's problems. It's a recipe for creating an isolationist America.

Other coalition members have indeed withdrawn their trops. As they did not occupy Iraq alongside British & American troops, they did not fulfil the international obligations and legal duties of an occupying force.

Nonetheless we should keep trying, he certainly shouldn't be allowed to get away with a smirk on his face.

Perhaps, but I just feel that the continuing damage being done to our National interests and security simply outweigh's our obligations and legal duties. We certainly didn't worry about legality when we started the darn war, so my point is that if we can start a war for allegedly national interests, we can certainly withdraw for our national interests.

I totally disagree vis a vi leaving the US to deal with it. We have 9000 troops stationed, we're currently sending another 3000 to Southern Afghanistan.
We have to come to terms with the simple fact that we are not an imperial superpower any longer. We cant simply be throwing troops around the world into conflicts that are initiated by the US. We are simply playing politics with the lives of our soldiers and the lives of their family members.

IF there was a threat to our national security, I would have absolutely no problems, BUT Iraq was not and is not a threat to our national security. I cant see how anyone can tell an orphaned child that their Father/Mother died because we wanted to give 'political' support to some nutter who believes he's on a mission from God and his Cabal of 'Security for Israel' Neo-Cons.

Z

Zafar

01-02-2006, 08:48

The British public are being grossly mislead about the current situation in Basra. They may intially have gone in with 'soft hats' but recently the situation has regressed back into an almost all out war. They certainly aren't putting the kettle on and the days of the greeting children out on the streets are gone. It's an extremely volatile situation and over the coming weeks it is likely to get worse. Morale is terrible and the majority of those serving are desperate to come home. They feel that they are carrying out a pointless and thankless task (And this was at the weekend before the tragic deaths over the last two days).

Totally agreed. Moralle is low already, but dont worry Little Tony is going to send them on a holiday to Southern Afghanistan !

Zafar

01-02-2006, 08:57

I am not condoning the killing of anyone. I think the Americans in particular made of terrible mess of the war and the subsequent occupation in particular. The British Army generally makes someone a nice cup of tea in circumstances where the yanks would send in an air strike. I am just of the opinion that we should remove dictators and help the people, this is rather different to Imperialism. I also understand that the Iraqi government wish us to remain and that we will leave when asked, what could be wrong with that?

I was mentioning that many of the sites that come up with these crackpot theories about September the 11th 2001 also tend to have other crackpot theories and Holocaust denial articles on them. My point is that the terrorists (for that is what we call people who use violence to terrorise people) killed thousands of people in the US without their being any justification regarding Iraq. This means that once we have all left Iraq they can use their old justification to carry on the attacks. They will always find such a justification.

Whilst I agree that through our imperial past we have more understanding/experience, nonetheless War is War and I imagine it can bring the best and worst out of individuals. Certainly I believe that our military officers are less gung-ho than their american counterparts.

The so called Iraqi govt is a fundamentalist Shia Govt.

As try as hard as I may, I dont see how removing a dictator (and not to mention the associated events of the reality of daily life) and helping setup a hardline fundamentalist shia govt is helping the people.

I'd argue that we've actually shot ourselves in both feet.

Tony

01-02-2006, 09:22

Iraq was not and is not a threat to our national security. I cant see how anyone can tell an orphaned child that their Father/Mother died because we wanted to give 'political' support to some nutter who believes he's on a mission from God and his Cabal of 'Security for Israel' Neo-Cons. Z

Ah, how time makes us forget Zafar. Hussains Iraq sponsored international terrorism. In 2002 I think it was $25,000 per martyr.

timo

01-02-2006, 09:42

I have read very little on this thread in terms of what the British and American presence in Iraq is supposed to achieve from those few who approve of the intervention. Call me naive [you had better not!], but when Iraq fell to invasion of 2003, I thought a simple solution to the problem posed by this perfectly dreadful country would also be the one most acceptable to the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds- in other words a rather messy but cathartic divorce allowing each of the ethnic groups to achieve separate nationhood and with it internal integrity and security. The south and east of Iraq is overwhelmingly Shiite in population, while Sunnis prevail in the centre and west, with the Kurds almost semi-independent in the northern region. Given the centuries of bad blood [to say the least] between these groups, exacerbated over the last few decades by the Baathist regime, it seemed a Sisyphean labour to try and force these distinct, mutually-hostile groups to live together harmoniously.

Surely, the sensible and moral approach would have been to appoint a boundary commission to draw up appropriate borders, and then utilise the inevitably limited period of military occupation to separate Iraq peacefully into three new nations, safely relocating those caught on the 'wrong' side of the new national borders. Preventing conflict would have been enormously simplified. Rather than dealing with intermixed and mutually-hostile populations, the US and allies would only have to deal with three parties. If one of the new nations decided to overstep the new boundaries, the full weight of allied diplomatic, economic, and air power could be exerted to maintain the new status quo.

Geopolitical sophists might point to the 'impossibility' of dividing Iraq into three countries in the context of the wider Middle East. They might point to the fact that Turkey opposes any independence anywhere for any group of Kurds because this might ultimately embolden the Kurdish majority in its own southeastern provinces to break away. This point assumes that Turkish interests somehow override those of all other nations involved. The fact is that, in the post-Cold War world, the Western powers have almost no need to pander to Turkey's obsession with the Kurds.

Another idea invariably used to dismiss division of the country [I actually oppose any British interventions in the first place on the grounds that none of this sorry business is in our national interests, but if there has to be intervention at least let it be sensible and moral] along ethnic lines is that the creation of a purely Shiite state in the south of Iraq would create a natural ally for Iran and alienate the large reserves of oil there from US commercial control. The policy of maintaining Iraqi unity is cast as a cunning piece of realpolitik designed to serve national interests as well as those of the large oil companies which, we are often told with a knowing wink, financially support Bush.

This argument might be true if the US and allies were willing to maintain a military presence in Iraq indefinately. Sooner or later we will pull out anyway. In the obscene chaos that is certain to follow, the Shiites, with 60% of the population and strong support in neighbouring Iran, are likely to at the very least gain control over their own ethnic, oil-rich area and quite possibly the rest of the country as well. The division of Iraq would, at least, prevent the possibility of the considerable oil reserves around Kirkuk falling into the hands of a very hostile Shiite state.

Additionally, the US policy of preferring Sunni Islam to the Shiite version is a case of six of one and half a dozen of another, to coin a cliche. From the 1950s to 1979, the US's staunchest ally in the Muslim world was Shiite Iran, ruled by its Shah [by all accounts, a very excellent person]- whereas Al Qaeda and the Wahhabism from which it sprang [and which flourishes in today's Saudi Arabia] are both from the Sunni side of the street. The naive assumption that Sunni Islamic states are per se more friendly to the US and allies is extremely dubious.

What then drives the West's support for an ultimately doomed 'united', democratic Iraq? One imagines that realistic US and British policy makers may be hoping that, out of the chaotic democratic experiment they are enforcing, a secular-minded, strong, resolute leader will arise who will impose unity on the divided country and do business with the West, while paying lip service to democracy. Have you guessed it yet? Another version of Saddam Hussein circa 1980. Such a figure would allow us to pull out, proclaiming 'mission accomplished' [One can see Bush and Blair, all gleaming teeth, on the front covers of newspapers in one's mind's eye]; and as Iraq gradually slipped beneath the media's radar, the strong arm tactics needed to keep such a naturally divided land united would not overly embarrass Western governments.

Another factor, which rather troubles me, is feeding the West's Iraq policy. This is the fatuous idea, now enshrined in the culture, society, and politics of both the US and Britain, that 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' within a single state is an absolute moral good in itself, a belief that is held ironically with scant regard for local cultures and histories in other parts of the world. In other words, we are projecting our own 'multicultural' experiment onto an area that has a completely different history and makeup, and with none of the ameliorating factors that might.. make 'multiculturalism' in the West temporarily feasible. Perhaps the real problem facing Iraq is not the tribal antipathies of its different groups and the conflict this engenders. Left to itself, such conflict would ultimately resolve itself in new boundaries and eventually new nations.The real problem is that admitting the legitimate differences and right to self-determination of these distinct ethnic/ religious groups threatens the new religion of the West- 'Multiculturalism'.

Zafar

01-02-2006, 09:58

Ah, how time makes us forget Zafar. Hussains Iraq sponsored international terrorism. In 2002 I think it was $25,000 per martyr.

Tony,

Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian 'Martyrs'. People were carrying out suicide attacks before he joined the bandwagon.

We end up getting into the Israeli conflict, but again I'll reiterate that he was not a threat to our national security nor our national interests.

I would go so far as saying that supporting Israel is not in our national interests. Especially in the current climate of unprecedented energy demands. The fact that Bush in his State of the Union speach talked about our 'addiction' on oil and the fact that Russia wants to cut off supplies as and when it feels like it. (Bush was basically preparing the Americans for more increases in oil prices).

Supporting Israel is probably good for the pockets of political parties and politicians (through the lobbying cash it generates), but not in our national interests.

Insofar as supporting terrorism, again I would argue that we're being selective. If we all agree that terrorism is the use of violence to further political goals then in the scheme of things his support for 'international terrorism' pales in significance to the support we and our allies have given to much worst attrocities.

Z

Zafar

01-02-2006, 10:07

MissGobby

01-02-2006, 12:13

My fiance was out in Iraq this time last year,for 6months, and now they may be sending him to Afghanistan!!!!!!!!!!! :(

Twiglet

01-02-2006, 12:32

My fiance was out in Iraq this time last year,for 6months, and now they may be sending him to Afghanistan!!!!!!!!!!! :(

I know how you feel MissGobby :(

Don't you just hate the news reports at the moment, how any death is being treated as a statistic. Having someone out there puts a whole different perspective on things.

timo

01-02-2006, 13:57

MissGobby

01-02-2006, 14:44

Yeah and it is such a horrible thought, he hates it in the army and wants to get out as soon as he can, they said they wouldnt be doing any more tours now for 2 years, so by then he would be out, but know they are saying they may be going out to Afghanistan for 4-6months as soon as March 06!!!

Im dreading it!!!!! :*(

AtticusFinch

01-02-2006, 14:53

Why should the state run the Iranian oil business?

Because the oil is under Iranian soil and therefore belongs to Iran?

LordChaverly

01-02-2006, 15:12

Because the oil is under Iranian soil and therefore belongs to Iran?

You are missing Timo's point here Daley. There is no reason why 'the state' should run a country's oil industry. In fact, industries as a rule tend to be run a lot better if they are left to the private sector (whether domestic or foreign). The oil industry is no exception to this. If multinational companies want a stake in a country's extractive industries, so much the better (they will bring with them capital, technical expertise and other forms of know how and access to external markets).

Nigeria is a classic example of the malign consequences of allowing too much state involvement in the oil industry. What it has meant is that successive kleptocratic governments have been creaming off the proceeds of Nigeria's oil wealth for decades and although Nigeria is now the world's sixth largest exporter of oil, ordinary Nigerians have very little to show for it. The industry has also been grossly mismanaged as a result of government meddling.

StarSparkle

01-02-2006, 15:26

Tony, with all due respect, I think your recent memory is failing you here. In the run up to the Iraq war, both Bush and Balir made it clear that any military action would not be about regime change - it was about ridding Iraq of 'weapons of mass destruction'. If you consult the historical records, you will find statements by Balir cleary indicating that Saddam could stay in power as long as WMD were destroyed, thereby removing the threat of WMD. Regime change, as a publicly stated goal, was an ex-post facto rationalisation, consequent upon the failure to find WMD.

I slightly disagree with you there, Lord Chaverly.

The real reasons for going to war against Iraq are ultimately known only to a coterie of highly-placed puppet-masters who pull President Bush's strings. Their reasons may include regime change, may include snatching oil reserves, may include pay-back for George Bush Senior - I don't suppose we'll ever really know why we went to war with Iraq.

The overt excuse, as I recall it, was to find and neutralise the 'weapons of mass destruction' (whatever that meant) supposedly being constructed by Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately - none of these so-called WMD have ever been found.....:suspect:

However, their supposed existence was a great ploy to bring the British public on board to support the action in Iraq. Up until then, I recall, people were very lukewarm about the whole thing. The intention behind the bogeyman of WMD was to make the British people so frightened about the danger to them from Saddam's regime that we would all heartily support the British and American governments in their illegal War.

To an extent, it worked - until it turned out that actually there were no WMD - they were just a figment of the British/American governments/security services imaginations.

WMD were the excuse to go into Iraq - not the reason.

StarSparkle

StarSparkle

01-02-2006, 15:33

mz.khan

01-02-2006, 15:35

people stop wasting the rest of youe lives discussing these matters, because the sad fact is that you are going to be able to make either a single or joint difference to the root cause problem.

this is how i see the wide picture-

oil will be burnt by man and his machines, greenland icecaps will melt, causing natural disaster after natural disaster.

uk and us will soon pull out all those troops when natural domestic disters warrant their use at home.

i suggest people place their energies in planning and investing in their own individual futures- the world(inclusive of uk and us) is going to be a very different(read extremely difficult) place to live in over the next 10, 20, 30,40, years...

even if you have just left school don't count on being able to pick up your pension at 65.

the number of unchecked significant variables is far too many, chaos awaits us unless we stop dependence on oil now...

Is oil dependent chaos inevitable? well in my opinion thats something that needs to be addressed, here ,now and today.

discuss

mz.khan

01-02-2006, 15:42

one good, though unprobable start would be if everyone rode a bicycle to work.

perhaps the good and wise(unamed) of sheffield forum would like to take an encouraging initiative..

mz.khan

01-02-2006, 15:43

....yeah ,thats it, get on yerrr bike!

LordChaverly

01-02-2006, 15:44

I slightly disagree with you there, Lord Chaverly.

The real reasons for going to war against Iraq are ultimately known only to a coterie of highly-placed puppet-masters who pull President Bush's strings. Their reasons may include regime change, may include snatching oil reserves, may include pay-back for George Bush Senior - I don't suppose we'll ever really know why we went to war with Iraq.

The overt excuse, as I recall it, was to find and neutralise the 'weapons of mass destruction' (whatever that meant) supposedly being constructed by Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately - none of these so-called WMD have ever been found.....:suspect:

However, their supposed existence was a great ploy to bring the British public on board to support the action in Iraq. Up until then, I recall, people were very lukewarm about the whole thing. The intention behind the bogeyman of WMD was to make the British people so frightened about the danger to them from Saddam's regime that we would all heartily support the British and American governments in their illegal War.

To an extent, it worked - until it turned out that actually there were no WMD - they were just a figment of the British/American governments/security services imaginations.

WMD were the excuse to go into Iraq - not the reason.

StarSparkle

Hi Sparkle,

We are not in disagreement about this.There is a difference between the stated reasons (which we do know about) and the 'real' reasons, about which we can only speculate (i.e. until such time as Cabinet papers and Oval office documents become open to public scrutiny - and perhaps not even then). My own 'take' on it is that Bush was unduly influenced by the neo con lobby, which had its own agenda for reshaping the Middle East. I think I have already discussed my views on Blair's motives at an earlier point in this thread. so I won't repeat them. Foreign interventions normally spring from a tangled web of motives and so there will always be room for controversy about the 'real' reasons for them.

cloudybay

01-02-2006, 15:44

Timo for benevolent dictator - I'd vote for that! :thumbsup: ;)

StarSparkle

Not sure about Timo as a dictator. Personally, I would prefer the Timo/Lord Chaverly 'Dream Ticket' myself, as long as they both would do me the great honour of allowing me to be their campaign manager or chief whip !! :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

01-02-2006, 15:46

LordChaverly

01-02-2006, 15:47

Not sure about Timo as a dictator. Personally, I would prefer the Timo/Lord Chaverly 'Dream Ticket' myself, as long as they both would do me the great honour of allowing me to be their campaign manager or chief whip !! :thumbsup:

Its a done deal Cloudy:thumbsup:

I am sure you will make an excellent campaign manager and/or chief whip

We must find a suitable role for the admirable Starsparkle as well though!

StarSparkle

01-02-2006, 15:49

Not sure about Timo as a dictator. Personally, I would prefer the Timo/Lord Chaverly 'Dream Ticket' myself, as long as they both would do me the great honour of allowing me to be their campaign manager or chief whip !! :thumbsup:

Oh yes, even better - I'd go for that!:thumbsup:

I think I'd be fighting you for the office of campaign manager or chief whip, though!! :cool: ;)

StarSparkle

cloudybay

01-02-2006, 15:50

Its a done deal Cloudy:thumbsup:

I am sure you will make an excellent campaign manager and/or chief whip

We must find a suitable role for the admirable Starsparkle as well though!

That's why I gave you two options. Starsparkle can have first pick as I'm happy with either :)

StarSparkle

01-02-2006, 15:52

Its a done deal Cloudy:thumbsup:

I am sure you will make an excellent campaign manager and/or chief whip

We must find a suitable role for the admirable Starsparkle as well though!

Hmmph - well I should think so, or I'll be very miffed! :D

StarSparkle

mz.khan

01-02-2006, 17:06

nobody said anybody was stupidsparkle.

i was just pointing out that an objective scientific point of view was alarmingly lacking

depoix

01-02-2006, 17:48

Zafar

01-02-2006, 19:33

Zafar,
I am pleased that my views of the former Shah of Iran caused you amusement, if only for ironic reasons. I thought his conservative preference for the privatisation of oil as opposed to nationalisation was admirable. Why should the state run the Iranian oil business? The Shah, at least in my paleoconservative view, was infinitely kinder, wiser and more trustworthy than the cruel, almost medieval figure than succeeded him.

I found your Michael Moore-style, 'Its all about oil' absolutism jolly amusing too. Do you really think that a reductionist, unitary explanation of that sort suffices here? As I said in my previous, lengthy posting, that explanation might be true if the US and allies were willing to maintain an indefinate military presence in Iraq. They intend nothing of the sort, and will pull out sooner or later. In the absence of a strong leader emerging to 'unite' the country, the dominant Shiites will most likely take control of both the land and the oil.

Timo,

Dont you ever stop to look at the pattern that seems to follow the intervention of the West when it comes to countries which are rich in mineral resources?

Would Saddam have been nice if he'd simply privatised Iraq's oil resources ?

You seem to be willing to excuse many factors, like for instance the Shah deposing a democratically elected leader. Perhaps the metric is simply if they privatise and open up their markets to Western multinationals, then they are 'Good' and if they dont they are 'Bad' ?
Thats not paleoconservative, thats neo-conservatism :)

Its not a question of whether the state should or shouldn't run the oil business. Its a question of what the people in the country want!

I guess thats a factor your paleoconservative doesn't seem to consider important.

Yes the Americans will eventually pull out, as sure as the Sun rises from the East and sets in the West but not until they are either forced out or until they are certain that they have secured oil for their companies to plunder.

Your paleoconservative understanding seriously underestimates the importance of oil, and its part in the reasons behind many of the wars and attrocities that have occurred in the 20th century and now continuing into the 21st century.

The importance of 'cheap' oil for Western economies is clear to see.
The 60's was one of the best decades for the western economies and growth, and guess what the price of oil was dirt cheap and barely changed during a whole decade.

The 90's after Iraq was conquered was again another excellent decade for western economies with excellent growth, again surprise surprise oil was cheap.

Now lets look what happened when the price of oil spiked in 73....

I know its just a coincidence :)

lol, I remember in the 90's when a barrel of Coke was worth twice the price of oil!

wendygs

01-02-2006, 19:37

Tony,

Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian 'Martyrs'. People were carrying out suicide attacks before he joined the bandwagon.

We end up getting into the Israeli conflict, but again I'll reiterate that he was not a threat to our national security nor our national interests.

I would go so far as saying that supporting Israel is not in our national interests. Especially in the current climate of unprecedented energy demands. The fact that Bush in his State of the Union speach talked about our 'addiction' on oil and the fact that Russia wants to cut off supplies as and when it feels like it. (Bush was basically preparing the Americans for more increases in oil prices).

Supporting Israel is probably good for the pockets of political parties and politicians (through the lobbying cash it generates), but not in our national interests.

Insofar as supporting terrorism, again I would argue that we're being selective. If we all agree that terrorism is the use of violence to further political goals then in the scheme of things his support for 'international terrorism' pales in significance to the support we and our allies have given to much worst attrocities.

Z

I AM EXTREMELY SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE CALLING THESE VILE AND MURDEROUS ATTACKS "SUICIDE ATTACKS" (SIC). THESE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE MURDERERS FULL STOP AND END OF STORY.

timo

01-02-2006, 21:24

Don_Kiddick

02-02-2006, 06:22

Mr Prime Minister: How do you sleep?

With eyes tight shut of course! :hihi:

The alternative?? (http://www.splitting-images.com/Car-Bernstein-CherieBlair.jpg)
:o :o :o

wendygs

02-02-2006, 08:00

KenH

02-02-2006, 08:35

That anyone could possibly condone Zafar's defence of murderers purporting to be "Suicide Bombers" who actually kill innocent people .

I must have missed the bit where Zafar defended them, or where anyone condoned this. In my mind I find the phrase "suicide bomber" manages to express the horror of what they do. I can't think of another phrase, except perhaps "suicide murderers" which sounds daft and makes me think of doctors that give patients overdoses.

timo

02-02-2006, 09:09

I do not think that Zafar is condoning murder either. His use of inverted commas around the word martyr suggests that he does not view the terrorists as heroes.

Regarding alternative names for 'suicide bombers', the phrase 'Islamikazi attacks' is currently in circulation in American conservative circles. I have used the phrase myself, and apologise for doing so. It is, on reflection, an unfair phrase. The terrorist murderers' interpretation of Islam is greatly at odds with the interpretation held by the vast majority of Muslims.

Abdul

02-02-2006, 10:44

That anyone could possibly condone Zafar's defence of murderers purporting to be "Suicide Bombers" who actually kill innocent people ie young babies, schoolchildren, students, parents and elderly people going about their business is like saying you condone their vilious activities in London last July.

The same could be said of Israeli settlers and soldiers who regularly kill innocent Palestinian women and children in cold blood.

Two Palestinian children were shot dead by Israeli soldiers in the last week.

Interesting how the killing of 'enemy' civilians is called self defence, while the killing of your own civilians is called murder.

Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1697825,00.html)

As the votes were counted in the Palestinian election and the scale of Hamas's landslide became apparent to the world, Aya al-Astal drifted away from her home and wandered towards the fence along the border between the Gaza strip and Israel.

The nine-year-old girl's parents realised she was gone as they watched the election results on television. They do not know precisely what happened, but the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism.

Jake01

02-02-2006, 11:14

The same could be said of Israeli settlers and soldiers who regularly kill innocent Palestinian women and children in cold blood.

Two Palestinian children were shot dead by Israeli soldiers in the last week.

Interesting how the killing of 'enemy' civilians is called self defence, while the killing of your own civilians is called murder.

Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1697825,00.html)

As the votes were counted in the Palestinian election and the scale of Hamas's landslide became apparent to the world, Aya al-Astal drifted away from her home and wandered towards the fence along the border between the Gaza strip and Israel.

The nine-year-old girl's parents realised she was gone as they watched the election results on television. They do not know precisely what happened, but the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

Aya was the second child killed by the Israeli army last week. Soldiers near Ramallah shot 13-year-old Munadel Abu Aaalia in the back as he walked along a road reserved for Jewish settlers with two friends. The army said the boys planned to throw rocks at Israeli cars, which the military defines as terrorism.

I agree with your statement Abdul and two wrongs dont make a right.... I disagree with all forms of murder.... long live peace I say.... too much intervention causes too much strife and too much murder....

ALZYMER

02-02-2006, 11:25

Like to hear it, or should I say 'Read' it or not, there will only be peace in the world when Jesus Christ returns.:thumbsup:

Jake01

02-02-2006, 11:26

Like to hear it, or should I say 'Read' it or not, there will only be peace in the world when Jesus Christ returns.:thumbsup:

If you say so.... or any other deity.

ALZYMER

02-02-2006, 11:35

Jake, late news flash!!! There is only one Deity, ALL the others are just wannanbee's:thumbsup:

Zafar

02-02-2006, 11:39

I AM EXTREMELY SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE CALLING THESE VILE AND MURDEROUS ATTACKS "SUICIDE ATTACKS" (SIC). THESE SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE MURDERERS FULL STOP AND END OF STORY.

Wendy,

Many would view soldiers in the same light.
Each will say they are doing their 'job', however its the people on the recieving end who are always the victims.

Z

Zafar

02-02-2006, 11:46

Zafar

02-02-2006, 11:55

Starsparkle, Depoix and Cloudybay,
Thankyou for your kind words, dear hearts. Have no fear, I plan to reform my New League of Empire Loyalists to save our beloved country. Lord Chaverly, of course, will be Deputy Prime Minister when we come to power [as surely we must?].

Zafar,
I disagree with most of what you say, but salute you as a worthy opponent. Perhaps I did paint an over-generous picture of the pro-West Shah. Still, I do maintain that you rely too much upon unitary explanations of the 'all about oil' variety, and you engage in occidentalism with your broad brush approach to 'the West'. Keep posting though, you are obviously an intelligent, thoughtful fellow.

lol, Timo, I agree with much of what you said but disagree profoundly vis a vi the Shah.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I am of the view that the root causes of most issues is usually quite simple. I personally believe that the root cause is energy and oil and everything else that has happened, certainly from the point of view of our actions of 'intervention' stems from this simple 'interest'.

Take care.

Z

timo

02-02-2006, 12:43

Abdul makes a telling point here regarding the sheer hypocrisy surrounding the Israeli Army's callous murder of Palestinians. One cannot discount the massive influence of the pro-Israel lobby amongst American Republican neo-conservatives in any discussion of American foreign policy re the Middle East, Iraq etc. The lobby is unfortunately a huge and powerful one, and Blair's government dances to its dischordant tune too.

Personally, I curse the Balfour Declaration that effectively led to the cruel theft of Arab land and the establishment of Israel. I am not anti-semitic [as Zafar has wisely pointed out, Arabs too are semites], but so many of the Israeli 'settlers' have no cultural or genetic links to the Holy land. Many of the New York Jewish 'adventurers for land' in Palestine descend from Turkish stock, and no more represent 'the chosen people' than I, an Anglo Saxon-Celt do.

It makes me sad to hear the old Arab saying, 'It is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, because the British shoot their friends in the back'. How I wish our peoples could understand each other better, and forge closer links and friendships. I am not in favour of perpetuating the myth of inherited racial guilt [many Israelis are fine people], but I do think we should remember how the Israeli Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists massacred both British and Arab League soldiers in Palestine sometimes, not to mention Arab civilians. The Israeli extremists were the original aggressors and terrorists, in some cases, murdering Britons who had liberated Jewish unfortunates from the Nazi camps. The idea, encouraged by the American media in particular, that the Israelis are 'the victims', holed up in a laager against savage, foreign hordes is a fatuous myth. Let us remember the deeds of blackest infamy committed by the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the biggest terrorists of all - the Israeli Army once in a while, as well as Hamas and the PLO.

wendygs

02-02-2006, 12:58

Wendy,

Many would view soldiers in the same light.
Each will say they are doing their 'job', however its the people on the recieving end who are always the victims.

Z

The fundamental difference is that Governments recruit AND pay soldiers AND soldiers know the risks involved when they accept the job. Killing innocent people who are not directly involved WILL NOT solve anything.

AND I AM SO ANGRY WITH THE CONTENT OF THIS THREAD THAT I'M NOT POSTING ANY MORE ON IT UNTIL I FEEL LESS ANGRY.

timo

02-02-2006, 13:07

How perfectly ridiculous!

Zafar

02-02-2006, 13:49

The fundamental difference is that Governments recruit AND pay soldiers AND soldiers know the risks involved when they accept the job. Killing innocent people who are not directly involved WILL NOT solve anything.

AND I AM SO ANGRY WITH THE CONTENT OF THIS THREAD THAT I'M NOT POSTING ANY MORE ON IT UNTIL I FEEL LESS ANGRY.

What ???

So let me get this straight.

1) In order not to be an evil heinous suicide bomber you must simply be recruited by a Govt ? (Heard of State Sponsors of Terror ?)

2) They must be paid, therefore if suicide bombers recieved a salary and benefits that would give them 'legitamacy' ?

3) lol, this is hillarious. You think that men or women who strap bombs to themselves dont know the 'risks' involved ?

4) You said 'Killing innocent people who are not directly involved WILL NOT solve anything.' and there I was thinking that by definition innocents are innocent and not involved. surely you meant 'Killing innocent people will not solve anything' ???

I hope you're feeling less angry :)

Z

Zafar

02-02-2006, 13:52

timo

02-02-2006, 16:18

Zafar,
Glad we agree on something, old fruit! To be serious, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see friendship and trust grow between the Arab and European peoples. For much too long now the issue of Israel, that cuckoo in the Middle Eastern nest, has hampered any prospect of decent relations between us. I hope that I live to see the day [ I am 44] when the Arabs can proclaim, 'It is great to be a friend of the British, because they are loyal to their friends', and the British [and other Europeans] can see beyond the sinister Arab stereotypes that abound.

When that odious, posturing ninnie, Robert Kilroy-Silk arrogantly declared that the West owed nothing to the Arab world, how very wrong he was. The garrulous fool betrayed his own cultural ignorance there. From the Arab world has sprung great wisdom and skill in the fields of medicine, philosophy, art, literature, music [the guitar is an Arab invention, for example, and not of Spanish origin as is popularly supposed], engineering, science etc. It is wise, and timely, to take a look at the 'positive' contributions these secretive but often astonishingly clever cultures have made to the sum of human knowledge and happiness.

wendygs

02-02-2006, 18:10

Murder Is Murder Is Murder Is Murder. People Wearing Bombs Around Their Bodies In Which Ever Part Of The World They Are In Blowing Up Other People Without Any Warning Is Murder. Perhaps These Insane People Should Continue Importing Their Atrocious Practices In To This Country.

At Least The Ira Gave People 30 Minutes Grace And Had An Arrangement With The Police Which Is More Than These Insane Murderers Had.

wendygs

02-02-2006, 18:24

Soldiers are recruited by Governments to work in their respective armies. They are paid for the risks and soldiers accept the risks involved. If these murderers who like to call themselves suicide bombers did the same in Sheffield I dont think you'd be so complacent. There is very limited research in to these insane lunatics for us to comment on and until there is if anyone gives such vilious methods any credence then they are probably equally insane.

As for the history, background, politics, rights or wrongs of it all, well quite frankly perhaps someone can find a magician to wave a magic wand; I dont know anyone with such skills or expertise and nor do I wish to speculate on potential solutions because I dont have the power, knowledge or expertise to implement them.

Going around with bombs strapped to bodies will not resolve anything.

Twiglet

02-02-2006, 18:25

wendygs

02-02-2006, 22:07

If you're confused twiglet I may have posted on the wrong thread but I just dont have the time to find the right thread or re-read the previous 8 pages of this thread to figure out what prompted me to write in such terms. So it is possible that everything I've posted on this thread may be off topic.

However, in my view it's far more topical than facts I dont know about because I wasnt around at the time and it's all since become so obfuscated to suit whoever and however they want to manipulate facts, that I cant make sense of anything and dont know fact from fiction.

I thought it would be useful to throw Melanie Phillips opinions in to the frame because she's got a different point of view to the stuff usually churned out and I felt we all needed something new to think about. :D

ANGELUS

02-02-2006, 22:16

timo

02-02-2006, 23:02

Wendy gs,
Have you ever tried 'Quiet Life' tablets? Why not take a couple, move the furniture about a bit, and you should feel a little better.

Twiglet

02-02-2006, 23:11

Controversial comment of the week from me:
Our men and women are out there doing a job that involves being shot at from time to time, the risk of being killed can come at any time- if they dont want to be in that situation.. DONT JOIN UP!

Simple as that.

However- they should not be out there in the first place.

I don't think that's a controversial comment. My friend certainly knew what he was joining up for. However they believe that they will come across being shot at while doing something for the purposes of good, in legal and morally justifiable conflicts. As you say they shouldn't be out there in the first place and they don't feel that their presence is doing enough benefit to weigh out the danger of being there.

Zafar

03-02-2006, 09:03