Iraq, 10 years on

[Ford]

its been in the news recently. not new, but many including blair still think it was the right thing to do. anyone any thoughts?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special_reports/struggle_for_iraq/

 

an interesting recent docu;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rh8hd/Panorama_The_Spies_Who_Fooled_the_World/

 

sort of resembled in that film green zone!

Edited March 20, 2013 by Ford

[ScarletPimpernel]

Bliar has never admitted to getting anything wrong, and I don't think he's about to start now. He committed our military to a US adventure when they were under-equipped, under-funded and with no exit strategy. As if that wasn't enough, the oaf Gordon Broon as Chancellor (and later as PM) did more damage to the British Armed Forces than any enemy action. Getting rid of Saddam may have been the right thing to do - but it should have been done at the end of Gulf War 1, when it would have been easy, and when the aftermath could have been planned for.

[Ford]

agree that he should've been deposed re GW1 under the terms of his surrender, but he wasn't. and agree that he was a tyrant.

are you saying that you think GW2 was the right thing to do?

the public reasons given for it have been shown to be incredible, but as everyone knows the public reasons often differ from the real reasons. a quick read of the un inspector reports at the time shows that there were 'certain' 'biological agents' around since #1. but, at the time of #2 they were no longer there. but there was 'some thing(s)' according to that 'curveball' and that seems to be mainly what they relied on! incredible!

no doubt though he could've been later deposed without the need for a 'war', and the unnecessary loss of how many lives at the time and post?

its all ironic, 'we' taught him how to be tyrannical, gas people (the brits did that there yonks ago), supported him against iran, he was then US friendly, kept the 'peace'/interests there, etc. ah the politics.

but, as soon as he threatened to trade oil in euros (after GW#1), which would've partly crashed the us dollar, and completely if others had followed? he became enemy #1. get an US friendly gov't in there asap? (similar to the politics surrounding the libyan 'spring'?).

as for harbouring terrorists, there's prob more active global terrorists in some other countries?

maybe the best policy could've been to be friendly and get Mcdonalds etc set up there. they soon would've been on board

(don't get me wrong, am not being pro or anti, just posting up objective re what's all out there anyway.)

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ford

[stu007]

Something else to remember is

 

In Gulf War 1 - The forces involved were operating under the United Nation banner as the course of action had been passed by the UN Security Council therefore the forces involved were taking direction from the UN Security Council.

 

In Gulf War 2 - Their was no UN Security Council resolution sanctioning the course of action that America and Britain took therefore America and Britain were for a better way of putting it flying their own flag with no UN security Council resolution or backing.

[Ford]

i know. the US apparently acted re #2 under the international law of self defence following 9/11! afghanistan maybe, but iraq? if iraq, then why not certain other countries?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Ford

[Ford]

North korea now?

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

talking of gulf war 11

 

the spin was that there was this Al Qaeda training cap operating in Iraq

 

did anybody swallow that garbage, or was any concrete proof offered to the exsistence of a terrorist cell

 

Saddam Hussein would have curtailed any threat to his authority with such vigor, who can believe that statement about training camps in Iraq

[Ford]

they didn't exist, apparently. and were subs shown not to have been there. dodgy intel, to fit the purpose ie curveball?

irony is that now there is prob more global terrorist cells in iraq then there was before, if there was any there at all in the first place!?

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ford

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Any ''statements'' made on this matter by Blair and Mc Broon were figments of imagination born out of their delusions that they could do no wrong!!

[postggj]

iraq can be seen as on the brink of civil war with the Sunni and the shia factions at each others throats

 

but iraq never gets reported now, does it

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The Sunni and Shia will ''war'' what ever the governmental attitude is in Iraq religious conflict is what damns the whole of the area!

[Ford]

thats the irony, saddam (who was neither apparently) had it under control! now its not, thanks to intervention.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

that's the point that people do not understand, it is a "mind set"

 

what right has the west got in dictating its western values on independent nations

 

you would have thought a super power, the soviet union would have shown the west the consequence of its actions in Afghanistan, even the British had a go in the 1830s

 

then people wonder why the west is not moving forward in Afghanistan because we have no right to be there, same as iraq

Edited March 30, 2013 by squaddie

[Ford]

quite right, if russia couldn't 'win' in afghan how could anyone expect the 'west'/un to do so! again, the irony. cia etc in afghan against the russians. no doubt 'others' now in afghan against the us/un! politics! war, a continuation of politics by other means.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

The west is seen as no more than an occupying force and not welcome

 

who decided we have the right to go into another country and dictate our terms to them at the point of a gun

 

We tried that before and ended up with the american war of independence. Britain was seen as a bully at the point of a gun

 

The middle east has never been more unstable due to the actions of Britain and America

[Ford]

so, N Korea next? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21979127

i know its all a load of rhetoric (they couldn't do anything substantial without the support of certain others) but, if it does happen, no doubt we'll be involved in some capacity.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

My own opinion, though not based on any facts would be Iran

 

All the troops and equipment are there to launch such an operation

If that did happen then we would have Russia and china to deal with, that is a frightening thought

[Ford]

yes, iran. forgot about them. ah the politics once again, deflected. but now n korea. in either case R and C to deal with. it all adds up!

Edited March 31, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

i get the international news from Reuters

 

you will be surprised what the real news is without all the spin from the likes of the Murdoch empire

[Ford]

i don't think i would be surprised! nothing much surprises me anymore. no covers should be judged.

reuters may not be as 'independent' as some may seem cf what actually goes on. its all an 'empire'.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

But the news on reuters is of a better quality and substance than the national media we have in this country

[Ford]

no pop media reflects 100% what actually goes on. recall the beeb during the iraq war #2, at one point i thought the beeb were iraqis!! point being, no objectivity just pandering to what gives together with the manipulation. which most media subscribes to, as you pointed out. the media has been proven to be not quite objective. but, yes reuters is prob one of the better.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Ford

[postggj]

i do not trust any of the media, to get a true reflection on what is really going on i use independent reports from freelance journalists posted on you tube

 

at least they are unedited

[Ford]

so, N Korea next? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21979127

i know its all a load of rhetoric (they couldn't do anything substantial without the support of certain others) but, if it does happen, no doubt we'll be involved in some capacity.

 

and the 'rhetoric' continues? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22021832

[Ford]

some more! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22027867