Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, etc.

[999tigger]

really?

 

we now have a power vaccuum in these places, we have no control in these places, we have a hot bed of terrorist training camps in these places, which is now spreading across the world

 

all of that was and still would be under the control of a despotic (admittedly) leader.

 

Go through the places and stop treating them as one. They are different.

[Harrystottle]

It hasn't finished yet. Iran is the next state that is intended to be smashed up, if Assad can be toppled in Syria first.

[999tigger]

make that 7.

 

Except why dont they look at what was happening already and what was going to happen in each situation. Then you can compare like with like. It wasnt going to be all sunshine and stability as things were changing.

 

Afghanistan - developed into major organised terrorist base from which AQ could train and launch attacks, similar to the way ISIS was at its peak.= Many more terrorist attacks on the west.

 

Syria- Civil war was going to happen anyway. The West have only directly attacked ISIS with airpower. ISIS are now in retreat rather than an actual country. Failure to attack them could have led to the fall of Syria and or Iraq completely = Even more powerful enemy and many more thousands of terrorists.

 

Iraq= where they made a true mess. Cant blame the UK because the plan wasnt there choice post Saddam, but with Saddam in place he would have been busy invading his neighbours, which isnt so bad, but stopping oil production would have sent the world economy into a nosedive, much worse than the 70's.

 

Libya =Gadaffi was actually insane and dying. They were heading for civil war anyway. All that would have happened is a much bigger refugee crisis as people fled across the Med.

 

So this idea that without intervention we would have had control and they would be stable countries is nonsense. Afghanistan would have been stable for AQ to grow and launch terror attacks from. Saddam would have launched his own attacks against his neighbours and the others were heading for civil war anyway. The people I feel really sorry for are the Iraqis and the very poor post Saddam plan which disbanded the army and then banned the previous regime from having any part, which is what turned them hostile.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:46 ----------

 

It hasn't finished yet. Iran is the next state that is intended to be smashed up, if Assad can be toppled in Syria first.

 

Who is toppling Assad? He's won or rather the Russians have.

[melthebell]

Go through the places and stop treating them as one. They are different.

but we helped destroy them all and created a hellhole

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:55 ----------

 

Except why dont they look at what was happening already and what was going to happen in each situation. Then you can compare like with like. It wasnt going to be all sunshine and stability as things were changing.

 

Afghanistan - developed into major organised terrorist base from which AQ could train and launch attacks, similar to the way ISIS was at its peak.= Many more terrorist attacks on the west.

 

Syria- Civil war was going to happen anyway. The West have only directly attacked ISIS with airpower. ISIS are now in retreat rather than an actual country. Failure to attack them could have led to the fall of Syria and or Iraq completely = Even more powerful enemy and many more thousands of terrorists.

 

Iraq= where they made a true mess. Cant blame the UK because the plan wasnt there choice post Saddam, but with Saddam in place he would have been busy invading his neighbours, which isnt so bad, but stopping oil production would have sent the world economy into a nosedive, much worse than the 70's.

 

Libya =Gadaffi was actually insane and dying. They were heading for civil war anyway. All that would have happened is a much bigger refugee crisis as people fled across the Med.

 

So this idea that without intervention we would have had control and they would be stable countries is nonsense. Afghanistan would have been stable for AQ to grow and launch terror attacks from. Saddam would have launched his own attacks against his neighbours and the others were heading for civil war anyway. The people I feel really sorry for are the Iraqis and the very poor post Saddam plan which disbanded the army and then banned the previous regime from having any part, which is what turned them hostile.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:46 ----------

 

 

Who is toppling Assad? He's won or rather the Russians have.

nobody said we'd have full stable and in control places, but far more stable than we have now

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:59 ----------

 

also a lot of the sectarian divides and tribes were also created because we poked our nose in after the first world war, partitioning and dividing

[999tigger]

but we helped destroy them all and created a hellhole

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:55 ----------

 

nobody said we'd have full stable and in control places, but far more stable than we have now

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:59 ----------

 

also a lot of the sectarian divides and tribes were also created because we poked our nose in after the first world war, partitioning and dividing

 

Go on then explain how it would be more stable to have AQ and ISIS as stable entities free to launch attacks. How many more 9/11 and 7/7 would be acceptable?

Explain how its better to have saddam attacking and at war with his neighbours plus an oil crisis.

 

You want to unimagine WW1 now? How far back would you like to go?

[melthebell]

Go on then explain how it would be more stable to have AQ and ISIS as stable entities free to launch attacks. How many more 9/11 and 7/7 would be acceptable?

Explain how its better to have saddam attacking and at war with his neighbours plus an oil crisis.

 

You want to unimagine WW1 now? How far back would you like to go?

 

now youre just being silly

[999tigger]

now youre just being silly

 

You're the one who made the point.

You dont answer any of the questions I ask.

You just make these vague points about it being more stable, but having ISIS in control, Saddam invading and even more powerful or AQ forming its own country seems to slip by you. How convenient it is for your make believe world.

Edited May 25, 2017 by 999tigger

[Carlinate]

Go on then explain how it would be more stable to have AQ and ISIS as stable entities free to launch attacks. How many more 9/11 and 7/7 would be acceptable?

Explain how its better to have saddam attacking and at war with his neighbours plus an oil crisis.

 

You want to unimagine WW1 now? How far back would you like to go?

 

In what way would IS be a stable entity if Saddam was still in power?

 

He would have crushed them. No opposition was allowed during his dictatorship.

 

As bad as he was he wasn't in the same league as IS who are pure evil.

 

Under Saddam Christians were allowed to live in peace and practise their religion. There were 1,500,000 Christians in Iraq when he was in power their number has now been reduced to approximately 300,000.

 

When IS take control of an area Christians are given the choice of converting or dying.

 

As for Al Qaeda they were originally supported and trained by the CIA back in the 80s to fight the Russians.

 

As for Gaddafi for all his faults he was far more progressive than other despots in the region.

 

He ensured that both education and medical treatment were free.

Electricity was free and under his stewardship the worlds largest irrigation project was carried out.

 

What the US has done, with the UK acting as its lap dog, is bring total chaos to the region.

 

Things were bad, the west has made them worse.

 

That doesn't excuse the pure evil that was demonstrated in Mancheste,r but it does go a little way toward explaining it.

[999tigger]

In what way would IS be a stable entity if Saddam was still in power?

 

He would have crushed them. No opposition was allowed during his dictatorship.

 

As bad as he was he wasn't in the same league as IS who are pure evil.

 

Under Saddam Christians were allowed to live in peace and practise their religion. There were 1,500,000 Christians in Iraq when he was in power their number has now been reduced to approximately 300,000.

 

When IS take control of an area Christians are given the choice of converting or dying.

 

As for Al Qaeda they were originally supported and trained by the CIA back in the 80s to fight the Russians.

 

As for Gaddafi for all his faults he was far more progressive than other despots in the region.

 

He ensured that both education and medical treatment were free.

Electricity was free and under his stewardship the worlds largest irrigation project was carried out.

 

What the US has done, with the UK acting as its lap dog, is bring total chaos to the region.

 

Things were bad, the west has made them worse.

 

That doesn't excuse the pure evil that was demonstrated in Mancheste,r but it does go a little way toward explaining it.

 

You have a different problem if Saddam is in power because you have a dictator who would have continued invading his neighbours and would have put paid to many western economies by controlling much of the worlds oil. I did make the point that Iraq was messed up by the failures of the west .

 

I agree IS would not exist, not in Iraq anyway, but then we were also talking about intervention in Syria against IS and apparently that was a bad thing.

 

More likely the global terrorist power would be AQ and imo they were more effective at terrorism than IS have been. We could have expected several more 9/11. As bad as the Manchester attack was it was only a one person portable bomb. The potential is there for more serious attacks which are pretty unstoppable i.e we havent found a way of dealing with cars and lorries.

 

Btw thats my point things are worse for Iraqis there, but not for the west.

Syria and Libya were always going to happen.

Afghanistan they had no choice since 9/11 and Iraq wouldnt have happened if Saddam had stayed in Iraq.

[hauxwell]

The world would be a safer place had we never have overthrown the leaders of these countries.

I use to speak to a nice lady at the bus stop who came from Iraq and she told me all of her family who were Christians had to flee the country and leave cars and their houses once Saddam was overthrown, they were no longer safe. She told me Saddam liked the Christian's and left them alone. Didn't sound to me he was all that bad or any worse than the people who were left in charge after he was overthrown. Were these people who wanted to get rid of the christians any better than Saddam?

We made a pig's mess of helping these countries transition to democracy and to respect human rights.

Oh I forgot we did give them a peace maker, Tony Blair, Bushe's puppet.