Politics, politics, politics

[Gilzeantoscore]

There always is from that type. Isn't he a member of Stop the War? If my memory isn't failing me then they're being incredibly pious in his name - as well as being cheerleaders for our enemies.

Your ideological prejudice knows no bounds. So let me get this right. You despise Blair because he was a war monger and you despise Corbyn because he is a peacenik? Admit it, the real problem is that they are both Labour.

 

[StephenH]

History is very lucky to have the use of hindsight.

I see WMD's are being mentioned again with reference to Isis.

The likes of Obama and Cameron are haunted by Bush and Blair and getting it wrong , so they do relatively nothing.

 

[the dza]

History is very lucky to have the use of hindsight.

I see WMD's are being mentioned again with reference to Isis.

The likes of Obama and Cameron are haunted by Bush and Blair and getting it wrong , so they do relatively nothing.

That's true. But unless our countries want to put a lot of our own troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria (with all the unintended consequences that end up coming into play by doing that) then progress against Isis will be slow until we have reliable forces on the ground to work with. In Syria, that will end up happening once we concede that Assad will stay in charge for the moment. In Iraq, my guess is that until that country is formally allowed to break into 3, it will be very difficult.

The trouble is, with regard attacks on our own countries, the cat is out of the bag now. We helped create the chaos in the region, a situation that is a breeding ground for terrorists who get hardened to combat and death. There has already been plenty of European citizens who went to fight over there and many of them will have returned -- some of those will be wanting to commit acts of terrorism. All that we can do is hope our security services can stop them.

In the meantime, hopefully our leaders will do what they can to get stability in as much of the region as possible. Negotiating with Russia and Iran is probably a good start, try and end the civil war in Syria. Iraq will be more difficult, but we are right to be wary of sending in thousands of troops. There are no easy answers, so we should be cautious.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Your ideological prejudice knows no bounds. So let me get this right. You despise Blair because he was a war monger and you despise Corbyn because he is a peacenik? Admit it, the real problem is that they are both Labour.

could be that with Blair no was no real reason for the war in Iraq, the reason i hate him. Where as after 9/11 I saw the need for the invasion of Afghan. This time I am not so bothered with Corbyn and his view on Syria. His view on shoot to kill terrorists bothers me. But taking the time to get it right and try a different approach with Syria is not something I have a problem with.

All said Corbyn has got so much wrong so quickly it makes me not trust anything he says even if the odd policy actually has merits. People do this all the time when someone at the other end of the political spectrum from their own views says something.

 

[scaramanga]

Your ideological prejudice knows no bounds. So let me get this right. You despise Blair because he was a war monger and you despise Corbyn because he is a peacenik? Admit it, the real problem is that they are both Labour.

No, you've got me entirely wrong there. I despise Blair because he spent all my money on creating an army of civil servant/benefit voters and ruined further education in the UK.

I think that any war to remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified, merely that the reasons given to the public were flimflam. It should have been done properly in the 90s and the execution of it was terrible, but the moral reasons for ending Saddam's reign massively outweigh any reason for not going to war in my eyes.

 

[StephenH]

I love politics.

Agree with @scaramanga re Saddam....reasons for the war, Bush and his backroom staff. We alway do what we are told by the US, just watch.
I'm a Blair fan but he was not perfect by any means. We will agree to differ here @scaramanga

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I love politics.

Agree with @scaramanga re Saddam....reasons for the war, Bush and his backroom staff. We alway do what we are told by the US, just watch.
I'm a Blair fan but he was not perfect by any means. We will agree to differ here @scaramanga

We did not go to Vietnam, know that was a long time ago. I agree Saddam was an a hole, but the are so many of them in the world. Unless you make the UN a proper army and go round every single one I do not see how you can pick and choose, unless you go after the ones that are a threat to the west first. Even so I do not think the Iraq war was right.

I would bomb Syria because they are harboring people who clearly are a threat to our way of life. I feel dirty saying the next bit, but i do not mind Corbyn asking questions about how we go about getting rid of ISIS. I have massive problems with him wanting to take suicide bombers out for tea and biscuits and asking them if their mothers ever loved them instead of just shooting the sick pricks in the head.

 

[StephenH]

We did not go to Vietnam, know that was a long time ago. I agree Saddam was an a hole, but the are so many of them in the world. Unless you make the UN a proper army and go round every single one I do not see how you can pick and choose, unless you go after the ones that are a threat to the west first. Even so I do not think the Iraq war was right.

I would bomb Syria because they are harboring people who clearly are a threat to our way of life. I feel dirty saying the next bit, but i do not mind Corbyn asking questions about how we go about getting rid of ISIS. I have massive problems with him wanting to take suicide bombers out for tea and biscuits and asking them if their mothers ever loved them instead of just shooting the sick pricks in the head.

Saddam was a nasty piece of work - I like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" describes the iraq war 'the second leg' so well.
Its legacy now lives on with Isis and our staggering indecision in dealing with them today.

Sadly I think another "incident" like Paris will lead to all out military involvement of the coalition on the ground as well.

I fear it is going to be very tough for young Muslims in the west.

As for the stupid Chilcot Inquiry/report, what a waste of time and money. We should not need anybody to tell us, that like most conflicts it was ill conceived and carried out. But that's with my favourite sense, good old hindsight, it's a bitch! They would have hung Winston Churchill the "brain" behind the Dardanelles abortion in WW1 in an inquiry. Remember Maggie and the Belgrano......

 

[scaramanga]

Remember Maggie and the Belgrano......

What exactly do you think is wrong about sinking enemy warships?

 

[StephenH]

What exactly do you think is wrong about sinking enemy warships?

Nice try

 

[parklane1]

History is very lucky to have the use of hindsight.

I see WMD's are being mentioned again with reference to Isis.

The likes of Obama and Cameron are haunted by Bush and Blair and getting it wrong , so they do relatively nothing.

Bush and Blair did not get it wrong, they lied. And the sheep fell for it.

 

[StephenH]

Bush and Blair did not get it wrong, they lied. And the sheep fell for it.

The US intelligence agencies were relying on Bush not asking too many questions and the U.K. asking as normal, none.
We always tow the line and will again. You watch!

The biggist sheep were Blair and our "intelligence" services.

 

[thfcsteff]

No, you've got me entirely wrong there. I despise Blair because he spent all my money on creating an army of civil servant/benefit voters and ruined further education in the UK.

I think that any war to remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified, merely that the reasons given to the public were hogwash. It should have been done properly in the 90s and the execution of it was terrible, but the moral reasons for ending Saddam's reign massively outweigh any reason for not going to war in my eyes.

Please tell me you don't believe the move to oust him was done on 'moral' grounds? Morality has played NO PART in our Middle Eastern interventions. If you can show me conclusive evidence that we have ever acted purely on the basis of 'morality' or 'altruism' I would love to see it.

 

[thfcsteff]

We did not go to Vietnam, know that was a long time ago. I agree Saddam was an a hole, but the are so many of them in the world. Unless you make the UN a proper army and go round every single one I do not see how you can pick and choose, unless you go after the ones that are a threat to the west first. Even so I do not think the Iraq war was right.

I would bomb Syria because they are harboring people who clearly are a threat to our way of life. I feel dirty saying the next bit, but i do not mind Corbyn asking questions about how we go about getting rid of ISIS. I have massive problems with him wanting to take suicide bombers out for tea and biscuits and asking them if their mothers ever loved them instead of just shooting the sick pricks in the head.

I think I can answer that one comfortably mate.
The determination is made based on where our best financial interests/security lies/is threatened. This is not being a 'leftie' or any of that, it is a stone cold fact. Jesus, no-one bothered going into Serbia until Bono projected it on a big screen and made it a double-embarrassment that everyone was twiddling their thumbs as death camps were again in full swing on European soil. And where have we been in any African conflict in the last 60-70 years?

Whatever people believe is theirs to believe on these issues, but the one FACT that lies beyond argument is that nothing in international politics is done for altruistic or morally-sound (as most of us here would define that term) reasons.

 

[Baleforce]

The US intelligence agencies were relying on Bush not asking too many questions and the U.K. asking as normal, none.
We always tow the line and will again. You watch!

The biggist sheep were Blair and our "intelligence" services.

I don't think our IS were sheep, they'd been waiting for the excuse for years, they'd have taken Saddam for not paying the milkman if they'd been allowed to

I don't think anyone Involved in the decision went into it thinking anything other than "wmds are nonsense but it's a convenient excuse that we might get away with"

I'm mildly annoyed they felt the need to lie but, hey ho, I don't believe the public have a right to know "everything"

 

[parklane1]

I don't think our IS were sheep, they'd been waiting for the excuse for years, they'd have taken Saddam for not paying the milkman if they'd been allowed to

I don't think anyone Involved in the decision went into it thinking anything other than "wmds are nonsense but it's a convenient excuse that we might get away with"

I'm mildly annoyed they felt the need to lie but, hey ho, I don't believe the public have a right to know "everything"

Maybe not, but no PM has a right to take our troops to war on a lie. Double income tax, ban strikes, put up prices etc, etc is one thing taking us into a illegal war is not.

 

[Baleforce]

Maybe not, but no PM has a right to take our troops to war on a lie. Double income tax, ban strikes, put up prices etc, etc is one thing taking us into a illegal war is not.

it's certainly far from ideal, you shouldn't focus on individuals though, the PM isn't a dictator, they can't do anything without support and they certainly don't make decisions without "expert" opinion

also, not suggesting this is true of you, had we found all the nasty devices that were rumoured it wouldn't have changed the majority of the stop the war phalanx's feelings on the whole thing, imo

 

[scaramanga]

Please tell me you don't believe the move to oust him was done on 'moral' grounds? Morality has played NO PART in our Middle Eastern interventions. If you can show me conclusive evidence that we have ever acted purely on the basis of 'morality' or 'altruism' I would love to see it.

If you look at the build up to the war it certainly looks more like we invaded because Saddam couldn't behave than some naive idea about oil and lizard men.

Think back to the restrictions put on the Iraqi Army in order to protect Kuwait and how often Saddam was breaching them. There's only so many times you can say "Stop doing that or we'll send the troops in" before you actually have to send in the troops or entirely devalue the power of international sanctions forever.

It was played very cleverly by Saddam as the only time he actually did withdraw his tanks/troops was when it was clear we were going to invade. That meant that it would be very difficult to sell the angle of protecting Kuwait to the public once the Stop the War tossers got their propaganda machine in full flow.

The ridiculous thing is, as any half-decent lawyer will tell you, there were legal grounds to send in troops without the WMD nonsense. Typically though, Blair needed style over substance and thought it better that he had a flimflam reason with public support than a real one with legal support.

 

[glorygloryeze]

If you look at the build up to the war it certainly looks more like we invaded because Saddam couldn't behave than some naive idea about oil and lizard men.

Think back to the restrictions put on the Iraqi Army in order to protect Kuwait and how often Saddam was breaching them. There's only so many times you can say "Stop doing that or we'll send the troops in" before you actually have to send in the troops or entirely devalue the power of international sanctions forever.

It was played very cleverly by Saddam as the only time he actually did withdraw his tanks/troops was when it was clear we were going to invade. That meant that it would be very difficult to sell the angle of protecting Kuwait to the public once the Stop the War tossers got their propaganda machine in full flow.

The ridiculous thing is, as any half-decent lawyer will tell you, there were legal grounds to send in troops without the WMD nonsense. Typically though, Blair needed style over substance and thought it better that he had a hogwash reason with public support than a real one with legal support.

Really? So we invaded because Saddam "wasn't doling what he was told"?
Shall i leave it for others to list others who are still to be invaded (going back 30 years +) because they "didn't do as they were told"? I'msure there are enough flouted UN resolutions that some can list..

It was a war borne out of America's vision to remodel the Middle East to their preferences, which included regime change in Syria and Iran. Afghanistan effectively having had already had regime change meant that getting those other 3 would fit together very nicely; their own Neocon bibles that were written even before the invasion show this clearly (see "Project For the New American Century").

The reason actually given publically for the invasion was almost irrelevant. The joke is that people still believe he flimflam that it was "to protect us and make us safe"!! LOL
It was always to do with American Geopolitical interests as well as getting some lovely new construction and oil contracts for some key corporations like Halliburton and Chevron.

 

[Baleforce]

I partly agree, if we are against tyranny we should be against it everywhere

if delivering democracy and capitalism to the world 1 blunt trauma at a time is the plan then let's get on with it