Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Varche on 29 January 2010, 10:32:27
-
Tony Blairs big day today. I am sure he will sail through it fairly unscathed.
However one unfortunate outcome of holding the inquiry might be to "admit" in law that the war was in fact illegal. So what would Britain (and America) do if the Iraqis rightfully demanded compensation to the tune of BILLIONS.? That would bankrupt our already bankrupt country!
I suppose we could always borrow the money off the Americans and pay it back over the next 50 years (sound familiar?)
-
You make a very good point.
Or, on the other hand, the war is declared illegal. Where does that leave the current war effort? Is it legal to continue or do we have the worst possible outcome of a job left half done?
If only the smarmy, grinning batsrad had had the patience to get proper support before wading in. >:(
Kevin
-
You make a very good point.
Or, on the other hand, the war is declared illegal. Where does that leave the current war effort? Is it legal to continue or do we have the worst possible outcome of a job left half done?
If only the smarmy, grinning batsrad had had the patience to get proper support before wading in. >:(
Kevin
That's possibly the same hand?
But New Labour were tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime so if it is proved illegal then Grinning Thing should be stripped of all his assets (he can keep CB) and that should help out the Iraqis.
-
Tony Blairs big day today. I am sure he will sail through it fairly unscathed.
However one unfortunate outcome of holding the inquiry might be to "admit" in law that the war was in fact illegal. So what would Britain (and America) do if the Iraqis rightfully demanded compensation to the tune of BILLIONS.? That would bankrupt our already bankrupt country!
I suppose we could always borrow the money off the Americans and pay it back over the next 50 years (sound familiar?)
International law is a very, very vague business. For every lawyer that argues it was "illegal" there will be one who can argue it was "legal".
Thus, to me, this argument about legality is a red herring. The real issue is whether it the British public and Parliament was deliberately lied to and I believe that the case for that argument is rather strong.
Personally, I was misled. In my naivety, I thought that the intelligence services had concrete evidence that not only did Saddam possess WMD, but that he was soon to use them. Since that time, I have learned the hard way that, gone are the days when an Englishman's word was his bond. These days, you cannot trust any member of government. Similarly, the trust I had in my youth for the police, doctors, teachers, "men of the cloth", and the BBC, have all evaporated. It seems that finding someone honest and trustworthy in public life is like looking for rocking-horse sh*t.
That is the "Broken Britain" to which Cameron should refer. But he doesn't. :(
-
so what happens at the end of this enquiry, does anyone the blame, does anyone get prosecuted, whos made money out of this enquiry, how much has it cost the taxpayer. ???
-
Tony Blairs big day today. I am sure he will sail through it fairly unscathed.
However one unfortunate outcome of holding the inquiry might be to "admit" in law that the war was in fact illegal. So what would Britain (and America) do if the Iraqis rightfully demanded compensation to the tune of BILLIONS.? That would bankrupt our already bankrupt country!
I suppose we could always borrow the money off the Americans and pay it back over the next 50 years (sound familiar?)
International law is a very, very vague business. For every lawyer that argues it was "illegal" there will be one who can argue it was "legal".
Thus, to me, this argument about legality is a red herring. The real issue is whether it the British public and Parliament was deliberately lied to and I believe that the case for that argument is rather strong.
Personally, I was misled. In my naivety, I thought that the intelligence services had concrete evidence that not only did Saddam possess WMD, but that he was soon to use them. Since that time, I have learned the hard way that, gone are the days when an Englishman's word was his bond. These days, you cannot trust any member of government. Similarly, the trust I had in my youth for the police, doctors, teachers, "men of the cloth", and the BBC, have all evaporated. It seems that finding someone honest and trustworthy in public life is like looking for rocking-horse sh*t.
That is the "Broken Britain" to which Cameron should refer. But he doesn't. :(
......Agreed....ambiguous and open to interpretation.
A big mistake by Tony Blair in my view...How will history judge him ......I wonder?... :-/ :-/ :-/
-
Tony Blairs big day today. I am sure he will sail through it fairly unscathed.
However one unfortunate outcome of holding the inquiry might be to "admit" in law that the war was in fact illegal. So what would Britain (and America) do if the Iraqis rightfully demanded compensation to the tune of BILLIONS.? That would bankrupt our already bankrupt country!
I suppose we could always borrow the money off the Americans and pay it back over the next 50 years (sound familiar?)
International law is a very, very vague business. For every lawyer that argues it was "illegal" there will be one who can argue it was "legal".
Thus, to me, this argument about legality is a red herring. The real issue is whether it the British public and Parliament was deliberately lied to and I believe that the case for that argument is rather strong.
Personally, I was misled. In my naivety, I thought that the intelligence services had concrete evidence that not only did Saddam possess WMD, but that he was soon to use them. Since that time, I have learned the hard way that, gone are the days when an Englishman's word was his bond. These days, you cannot trust any member of government. Similarly, the trust I had in my youth for the police, doctors, teachers, "men of the cloth", and the BBC, have all evaporated. It seems that finding someone honest and trustworthy in public life is like looking for rocking-horse sh*t.
That is the "Broken Britain" to which Cameron should refer. But he doesn't. :(
I agree with a lot of what you say there Nickbat. Part of discovering that people aren't trustworthy is just us growing up and being able to check things out for ourselves. However, I'm convinced that you are right to think that people in Britain are less trustworthy than they were a couple of decades ago even.
When I listen to David Cameron, I try to interpret what he says in the light of my experience so I think he may be onto the problem as I see it. Trying to get remedies implemented might have to be similar to Grinning Thing's technique on Iraq though, otherwise there will be too much opposition to get any legislation through. One person in parliament who realises the problem will not be enough, and the problem is pervasive, especially in The House.
-
Once again Varche has provided a sumptuous banquet for those of us who possess a healthy political appetite to feast upon :y :y
There will be many questions to be answered concerning the conduct of this war, not least the legality of it. However I am more concerned with just how the cabinet and back-benchers - members of a duly and democratically elected government and many in the opposition parties - were subsumed into taking this action by a small cabal of individuals led by ex Premier Blair, ex Chancellor (now Premier) Brown, the unelected and very mendacious Mr Campbell and some others.
In my view the democratic process within this country was disregarded by these people who were obviously working to an agenda outside the proper remit of democratic scrutiny. This is unforgivable and has made a mockery of due process - in short, it smacks of the work of a dictatorship.
May they burn in hell for it!!
-
Once again Varche has provided a sumptuous banquet for those of us who possess a healthy political appetite to feast upon :y :y
There will be many questions to be answered concerning the conduct of this war, not least the legality of it. However I am more concerned with just how the cabinet and back-benchers - members of a duly and democratically elected government - were subsumed into taking this action by a small cabal of individuals led by ex Premier Blair, ex Chancellor (now Premier) Brown, the unelected and very mendacious Mr Campbell and some others.
In my view the democratic process within this country was disregarded by these people who were obviously working to an agenda outside the proper remit of democratic scrutiny. This is unforgivable and has made a mockery of due process - in short, it smacks of the work of a dictatorship.
May they burn in hell for it!!
......now.. now ....Zulu.....take a deep breath .....count to ten ...and then........... ;) ;) ;) ;) :y
-
Once again Varche has provided a sumptuous banquet for those of us who possess a healthy political appetite to feast upon :y :y
There will be many questions to be answered concerning the conduct of this war, not least the legality of it. However I am more concerned with just how the cabinet and back-benchers - members of a duly and democratically elected government - were subsumed into taking this action by a small cabal of individuals led by ex Premier Blair, ex Chancellor (now Premier) Brown, the unelected and very mendacious Mr Campbell and some others.
In my view the democratic process within this country was disregarded by these people who were obviously working to an agenda outside the proper remit of democratic scrutiny. This is unforgivable and has made a mockery of due process - in short, it smacks of the work of a dictatorship.
May they burn in hell for it!!
......now.. now ....Zulu.....take a deep breath .....count to ten ...and then........... ;) ;) ;) ;) :y
;D ;D Thanks Opti, I've just asked Julie London to help me with that :-* :-* 8-) :y
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtIEkdTlnC8&feature=related[/media]
-
Once again Varche has provided a sumptuous banquet for those of us who possess a healthy political appetite to feast upon :y :y
There will be many questions to be answered concerning the conduct of this war, not least the legality of it. However I am more concerned with just how the cabinet and back-benchers - members of a duly and democratically elected government - were subsumed into taking this action by a small cabal of individuals led by ex Premier Blair, ex Chancellor (now Premier) Brown, the unelected and very mendacious Mr Campbell and some others.
In my view the democratic process within this country was disregarded by these people who were obviously working to an agenda outside the proper remit of democratic scrutiny. This is unforgivable and has made a mockery of due process - in short, it smacks of the work of a dictatorship.
May they burn in hell for it!!
......now.. now ....Zulu.....take a deep breath .....count to ten ...and then........... ;) ;) ;) ;) :y
;D ;D Thanks Opti, I've just asked Julie London to help me with that :-* :-* 8-) :y
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtIEkdTlnC8&feature=related[/media]
so much better...........now you're in the mood for lurve Zulu.. ;) ;) ;)
-
I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest. Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.
However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good. This theology is apparent in much of world history, especially in recent times. Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people. Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us. A situation that I for one rejoice about!
-
I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest. Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.
However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good. This theology is apparent in much of world history, especially in recent times. Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people. Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us. A situation that I for one rejoice about!
...I'm shocked by this revelation Lizzie.. ::) ::) :y
-
I liked it better when a war was a war. Didn't have to worry about collateral damage, just blow them all to smithereens. ;D
It would have been over in no time and, once the radioactivity had settled down, we could have helped ourselves to all their natural resources :y
I should be PM.
-
I liked it better when a war was a war. Didn't have to worry about collateral damage, just blow them all to smithereens. ;D
It would have been over in no time and, once the radioactivity had settled down, we could have helped ourselves to all their natural resources :y
I should be PM.
you know what I think, I like this man ;D
only problem is Stmo, even 10 generations after you have to wait for radiation to settle ;D
-
I liked it better when a war was a war. Didn't have to worry about collateral damage, just blow them all to smithereens. ;D
It would have been over in no time and, once the radioactivity had settled down, we could have helped ourselves to all their natural resources :y
I should be PM.
......of course you should....I lot of patients on your ward ......feel the same way.... :D :D ;)
-
I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest. Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.
However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good. This theology is apparent in much of world history, especially in recent times. Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people. Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us. A situation that I for one rejoice about!
as the means can be justified by the end result,
That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. :-X :-X
Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
A very reasonable statement but I wish that if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.
very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister
Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not? No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.
Is that not in itself highly speculative E? We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion. Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.
Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan? When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.
-
A frightening scenario:
China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet? ;D ;D
-
A frightening scenario:
China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet? ;D ;D
They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent
-
A frightening scenario:
China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet? ;D ;D
They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent
;D ;D ;D ;D
There's only ever one at sea. They're clapped out.
Shhh....dont tell Ahmadinajad.
-
A frightening scenario:
China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet? ;D ;D
They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent
;D ;D ;D ;D
There's only ever one at sea. They're clapped out.
Shhh....dont tell Ahmadinajad.
Nor Peking
-
I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest. Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.
However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good. This theology is apparent in much of world history, especially in recent times. Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people. Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us. A situation that I for one rejoice about!
as the means can be justified by the end result,
That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. :-X :-X
Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
A very reasonable statement but I wish that 1.if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.
very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister
Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not? No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.
Is that not in itself highly speculative E? 2.We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion. Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.
Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan? When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.
phew..impressive.. :y
1. Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his) idea was the control of region and oil fields..
And for Blair , I'm afraid he realized he had no choice against the storm..
and the truth , system used both and sacrifice them when the wind turns..
2. intelligencies (of course not the public) know the reality what was happening actually .. and its a known fact sometimes they dont share their complete knowledge with the govt (in many countries) :-/
For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora.. Very different groups.. And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..
Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them :D) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..
and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes :( abused by Iran..
and a note : dont think Kurds were all peacefull and clean like they come from milk , god knows what they have done to other minorities.. >:(
-
phew..impressive.. :y
1. Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his) idea was the control of region and oil fields..
And for Blair , I'm afraid he realized he had no choice against the storm..
and the truth , system used both and sacrifice them when the wind turns..
2. intelligencies (of course not the public) know the reality what was happening actually .. and its a known fact sometimes they dont share their complete knowledge with the govt (in many countries) :-/
For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora.. Very different groups.. And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..
Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them :D) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..
and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes :( abused by Iran..
and a note : dont think Kurds were all peacefull and clean like they come from milk , god knows what they have done to other minorities.. >:(
Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his) idea was the control of region and oil fields..
I think there's more than a grain of truth to that cem - in addition, the excuse to go to war over 'WMD' was the perfect excuse to have American 'boots on the ground' in a region where the centralisation of a viable counter force to any perceived aggression from any one of a number of countries surrounding it, was perhaps considered to be of a very distinct advantage.
For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora.. Very different groups.. And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..
Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them :D) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..
I certainly agree with you cem. When Saddam was warring with Iran he was deemed to be of use to the west (the United States) Now that he has been removed from power a dangerous vacuum exists and furthermore but for the American presence there at the moment the country and perhaps the near region would implode into conflict.
and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes :( abused by Iran..
Exactly cem and these unpalatable facts have been made the more obvious by this ill advised war
-
I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest. Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.
However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good. This theology is apparent in much of world history, especially in recent times. Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people. Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us. A situation that I for one rejoice about!
as the means can be justified by the end result,
1. That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. :-X :-X
Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.
2. A very reasonable statement but I wish that if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.
very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister
3. Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not? No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.
Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.
4. Is that not in itself highly speculative E? We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion. Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.
Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.
5. For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan? When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.
1. But also many many victories have transpired which has resulted in our democracy still being intact. Remember the SAS motto; he who dares wins!
2. I don't know where you were at the time Zulu, but I remember well that these issues were being broadcast by the politicians concerned regularly in the media.
3. Blair was the PM. He was the key politician to make the decision and take responsibility. In power one can take full consultation, brief and recommendation by commitee or not. But, when it comes to the final decision, it is the leader who must make it one way or another.
4. No, not when you take into account Saddam's form - a first world war type engagement against Iran - wiping out his opposition - taking out the Kurds - invading Kuwait - running a family regime that was an aggressive dictatorship - 99% of the regional Arab nations feared him, as the west did. Why? Saddam represented a Hitler type character who had to be stopped before he became a mini version of that devil.
5. No, but they are measured in thousands; without such action such as the Allied bombing raids on Germany, WWII would have continued longer, with possibly millions more killed. Sometimes in life's political actions 1 life X unit has to be sacrificed to save1000 life X units. Ask the Russian survivors of the Battle for Stalingrad and the onward battles to the centre of Berlin. Russia, and Europe, is today what it is due to all of this type of sacrifice.
I am sure I do not have to remind you Zulu that life is neither black nor white, but a muddy grey!
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired Too little too late. Jeremy Drone embraced this today because he's duller than grey paint. Saddam & his sons needed sorting. We did that, now it's illegal so we should'nt have.
This will never be resolved because of the feelings on each side who both have a point but it's done now right or wrong so can everyone including the press/media stop dragging it out please?
Yes i sympathise with the lives lost in the call of duty, they're ALL tougher men & women than i am but it's pointless hounding his "Tonyness" or that Bush pillock because you'll NEVER get a straight answer.
6 hrs wasted chat today... Tony evaded everything perfectly & we're no further ahead. Nothing else will happen.
Wasted news. ::)
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired Too little too late. Jeremy Drone embraced this today because he's duller than grey paint. Saddam & his sons needed sorting. We did that, now it's illegal so we should'nt have.
This will never be resolved because of the feelings on each side who both have a point but it's done now right or wrong so can everyone including the press/media stop dragging it out please?
Yes i sympathise with the lives lost in the call of duty, they're ALL tougher men & women than i am but it's pointless hounding his "Tonyness" or that Bush pillock because you'll NEVER get a straight answer.
6 hrs wasted chat today... Tony evaded everything perfectly & we're no further ahead. Nothing else will happen.
Wasted news. ::)
:-?
AmigoV6, all these lifes are lost and many will be in the future because some cartels may profit more..
and now you think we are wasting time by talking/discussing the facts before and after..
go get some sleep ;D
-
The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. ;)
-
Evening Cem. I did say i sympathise with loss of serving lives & those of the innocent citizens. I can't say whether this war was morally correct/legal or other wise i just think it's a bit late in the day to waste more time & money on an inquiry now.
The damage is done, this won't bring anyone back. The whole thing's a bit of a mess really.
-
Evening Cem. I did say i sympathise with loss of serving lives & those of the innocent citizens. I can't say whether this war was morally correct/legal or other wise i just think it's a bit late in the day to waste more time & money on an inquiry now.
The damage is done, this won't bring anyone back. The whole thing's a bit of a mess really.
Good evening AmigoV6 :y
I'm afraid another war is knocking the door and some parents will still have to send their children for another one..
I think its much better for people to understand whats going on in reality which is not told by media.. :-/
-
I admit my opinions are based on limited knowledge & total lack of experience of living in such conditions for which i consider myself fortunate. I don't have a solution, niether do the powers that be, i just think enough's enough, nothing more to be gained.
Yes i do need some sleep!!! :y
-
author=4A6F7C7C6F63595C69696B060 link=1264761147/23#23 date=1264804069]
1. But also many many victories have transpired which has resulted in our democracy still being intact. Remember the SAS motto; he who dares wins!
2. I don't know where you were at the time Zulu, but I remember well that these issues were being broadcast by the politicians concerned regularly in the media.
3. Blair was the PM. He was the key politician to make the decision and take responsibility. In power one can take full consultation, brief and recommendation by commitee or not. But, when it comes to the final decision, it is the leader who must make it one way or another.
4. No, not when you take into account Saddam's form - a first world war type engagement against Iran - wiping out his opposition - taking out the Kurds - invading Kuwait - running a family regime that was an aggressive dictatorship - 99% of the regional Arab nations feared him, as the west did. Why? Saddam represented a Hitler type character who had to be stopped before he became a mini version of that devil.
5. No, but they are measured in thousands; without such action such as the Allied bombing raids on Germany, WWII would have continued longer, with possibly millions more killed. Sometimes in life's political actions 1 life X unit has to be sacrificed to save1000 life X units. Ask the Russian survivors of the Battle for Stalingrad and the onward battles to the centre of Berlin. Russia, and Europe, is today what it is due to all of this type of sacrifice.
I am sure I do not have to remind you Zulu t
1 I know that motto very well and there is no doubt that audacious action can achieve the desired result in many cases. However, precipitous action based on the same motivators of such self belief can also produce unwanted results, and I again speak of this from personal experience.
2 Indeed so E but I would suggest that the message was being fed to the MSM by Ministers via the Director of Communications in Downing Street - a person unelected at the heart of power and decision making. If you can't accept how influential this man considered himself to be, read some of his correspondence with media representatives over on the Hutton Enquiry archives.
3 I would not be of the opinion for one moment that ex Premier Blair was alone in taking that decision. In decisions of such importance surely the final say must come from a consensus of opinion within those involved in the process. In this case Mr Blair seems to have ignored advice and pressed ahead with his support for the action proposed by the United States - for whatever reason. The suggestion of a tortured soul at the head of government struggling with life or death decisions does not ring quite true and fails to sit easily with the Blair that we all came to know so very well
4 Did the west fear him; I seem to remember that the Untied States considered him a very useful asset when he was in conflict with Iran - don't forget Don Rumsfeld met him face to face to develop this relationship?
Iran certainly didn't fear him, as both nations fought to a stalemate despite each suffering terrible losses. Despite all the bluff from certain intelligence agencies Saddam’s reach was probably quite limited and while time was wasted on this, the real problem area between Pakistan and Afghanistan was being ignored.
5 That will always be a very subjective call E especially where the directors of military operations in theatre are concerned, the application of force on principle of might being right, irrespective of consequence, can sometimes fall far short of being the correct course of action to take.
Finally I know quite well about the waters being muddy many of us who had to tread through those waters still suffer the consequences - both physical and emotional
-
I admit my opinions are based on limited knowledge & total lack of experience of living in such conditions for which i consider myself fortunate. I don't have a solution, niether do the powers that be, i just think enough's enough, nothing more to be gained.
Yes i do need some sleep!!! :y
:y
-
author=4A6F7C7C6F63595C69696B060 link=1264761147/23#23 date=1264804069]
1. But also many many victories have transpired which has resulted in our democracy still being intact. Remember the SAS motto; he who dares wins!
2. I don't know where you were at the time Zulu, but I remember well that these issues were being broadcast by the politicians concerned regularly in the media.
3. Blair was the PM. He was the key politician to make the decision and take responsibility. In power one can take full consultation, brief and recommendation by commitee or not. But, when it comes to the final decision, it is the leader who must make it one way or another.
4. No, not when you take into account Saddam's form - a first world war type engagement against Iran - wiping out his opposition - taking out the Kurds - invading Kuwait - running a family regime that was an aggressive dictatorship - 99% of the regional Arab nations feared him, as the west did. Why? Saddam represented a Hitler type character who had to be stopped before he became a mini version of that devil.
5. No, but they are measured in thousands; without such action such as the Allied bombing raids on Germany, WWII would have continued longer, with possibly millions more killed. Sometimes in life's political actions 1 life X unit has to be sacrificed to save1000 life X units. Ask the Russian survivors of the Battle for Stalingrad and the onward battles to the centre of Berlin. Russia, and Europe, is today what it is due to all of this type of sacrifice.
I am sure I do not have to remind you Zulu t
1 I know that motto very well and there is no doubt that audacious action can achieve the desired result in many cases. However, precipitous action based on the same motivators of such self belief can also produce unwanted results, and I again speak of this from personal experience.
2 Indeed so E but I would suggest that the message was being fed to the MSM by Ministers via the Director of Communications in Downing Street - a person unelected at the heart of power and decision making. If you can't accept how influential this man considered himself to be, read some of his correspondence with media representatives over on the Hutton Enquiry archives.
3 I would not be of the opinion that ex Premier Blair alone was for one moment in taking that decision. In decisions of such importance surely the final say must come from a consensus of opinion within those involved in the process. In this case Mr Blair seems to have ignored advice and pressed ahead with his support for the action proposed by the United States - for whatever reason. The suggestion of a tortured soul at the head of government struggling with life or death decisions does not ring quite true and fails to sit easily with the Blair that we all came to know so very well
4 Did the west fear him; I seem to remember that the Untied States considered him a very useful asset when he was in conflict with Iran - don't forget Don Rumsfeld met him face to face to develop this relationship?
Iran certainly didn't fear him, as both nations fought to a stalemate despite each suffering terrible losses. Despite all the bluff from certain intelligence agencies Saddam’s reach was probably quite limited and while time was wasted on this, the real problem area between Pakistan and Afghanistan was being ignored.
5 That will always be a very subjective call E especially where the directors of military operations in theatre are concerned, the application of force on principle of might being right, irrespective of consequence, can sometimes fall far short of being the correct course of action to take.
Finally I know quite well about the waters being muddy many of us who had to tread through those waters still suffer the consequences - both physical and emotional
:y :y :-X
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired Too little too late. Jeremy Drone embraced this today because he's duller than grey paint. Saddam & his sons needed sorting. We did that, now it's illegal so we should'nt have.
This will never be resolved because of the feelings on each side who both have a point but it's done now right or wrong so can everyone including the press/media stop dragging it out please?
Yes i sympathise with the lives lost in the call of duty, they're ALL tougher men & women than i am but it's pointless hounding his "Tonyness" or that Bush pillock because you'll NEVER get a straight answer.
6 hrs wasted chat today... Tony evaded everything perfectly & we're no further ahead. Nothing else will happen.
Wasted news. ::)
At the tax payers expense, the rest of the arguments I am not getting into...... :(
-
I was just thinking, what other country would call their ex-leader in to justify going to war and hold that meeting live in public? Amazing.
and Teflon Tony was good, very good but i don't care why we went to war all i see is the end of a brutal regime and vast oil resources secured and maybe i'm being heartless but its a price worth paying. our troops joined the armed forces in the almost certain knowledge they would get to see action (Britain has been involved in more conflicts since the 2nd WW than any other nation on the planet - so i'd say joining the British Forces was as close to a guarantee of action as you're likely to get - it's the job they do and they do it better than anyone)
my only wish is that Blair had said from the outset "look, we (well mainly the US) need oil, 9/11 gives us a great excuse to secure vast quantities, I know Al-Queda were responsible and Saddam won't let Al-Queda into his country so the link isn't even tenuous - there isn't a link! But let's be honest, he's a bit of a C U Next Tuesday isn't he? So what do you say we roll in and kill the bar-steward and his nut-job sons?" :y
-
Blair's whole performance was as slick as we've come to expect from someone who will know all the questions, and know how to sound like he's answering them honestly.
This whole thing is a waste of time and money, most of us KNOW the thing was illegal, but you'll never convince that grinning tit that he was wrong. That's just how fanatics are.
-
The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. ;)
I agree with almost all you're saying here. I don't have any sympathy for the point of view that says the Dresden bombing was a war crime, ignoring what was done to Coventry. I can't say I lost loved ones in the blitz, because I was born six months after the war in Europe finished. But my family come from Holland, and I'd have a lot more relatives today if almost the entire Dutch contingent hadn't been carted off to the concentration camps.
Nasty things happen in wars. But once the war is over, the world needs to get on with the peace. I'm appalled by the fact that "war criminals" are being prosecuted 60 years after the war - what's the point? And while I do have a lot of sympathy for the families of the service personnel who lost their lives, I must point out that these people joined the Armed Forces, not the village flower arranging society. To a complete outsider with no military experience whatsoever, it looks to me like getting killed in a war is an occupational hazard for soldiers, and no amount of bitching about the reasons for the war is going to change that.
The Iraq war was probably inevitable. Saddam made to many enemies both internally and externally. If the USA and UK had not intervened when they did, I think it's quite likely that Israel would eventually have taken some sort of action, and that would have been a disaster on a much grander scale.
Let me make it clear - I absolutely detest Tony Blair. But watching the news last night, I realised that I detest the rent-a-mob outside the hearing building even more. And I detest Gordon Brown even more than that. I don't think Blair has been honest, I don't think that we yet know, or will ever know, the real reasons for his actions, but I don't think there was any way the world could have avoided what happened.
Sorry - too many points - not very coherent. I'll do better next time. :)
-
The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. ;)
I agree with almost all you're saying here. I don't have any sympathy for the point of view that says the Dresden bombing was a war crime, ignoring what was done to Coventry. I can't say I lost loved ones in the blitz, because I was born six months after the war in Europe finished. But my family come from Holland, and I'd have a lot more relatives today if almost the entire Dutch contingent hadn't been carted off to the concentration camps.
Nasty things happen in wars. But once the war is over, the world needs to get on with the peace. I'm appalled by the fact that "war criminals" are being prosecuted 60 years after the war - what's the point? And while I do have a lot of sympathy for the families of the service personnel who lost their lives, I must point out that these people joined the Armed Forces, not the village flower arranging society. To a complete outsider with no military experience whatsoever, it looks to me like getting killed in a war is an occupational hazard for soldiers, and no amount of bitching about the reasons for the war is going to change that
The Iraq war was probably inevitable Saddam made to many enemies both internally and externally. If the USA and UK had not intervened when they did, I think it's quite likely that Israel would eventually have taken some sort of action, and that would have been a disaster on a much grander scale.
Let me make it clear - I absolutely detest Tony Blair. But watching the news last night, I realised that I detest the rent-a-mob outside the hearing building even more. And I detest Gordon Brown even more than that. I don't think Blair has been honest, I don't think that we yet know, or will ever know, the real reasons for his actions, but I don't think there was any way the world could have avoided what happened.
Sorry - too many points - not very coherent. I'll do better next time. :)
Not necessarily in its present manifestation J. I would have thought that a regional conflict was the more likely result following a response by Israel to the perceived threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme - although the increased threat levels posed by some in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories could well have produce the same response.
Saddam's reach as far as Israel is concerned was, I believe, modest. I feel that the United States had a clear intention of establishing a powerbase in the region to be better placed if they needed respond to the looming threat from Iran. As a result, the excuse for invasion offered to the United Nations probably bore no relation to the true motivation of the US administration.
What has changed? – Yes, Saddam has been removed from power but Iraq has been all but destroyed and, in the absence of the very large US security presence there at the moment, would in all probability descend into outright anarchy with dire regional consequences.
The British presence unfortunately doesn't seem to have had much impact when compared to that of the US commitment. In the end a retreat from Basra seems to be the culmination of our contribution. Such is the intractability of engaging in asymmetric warfare even the US forces have eventually been fought to a stand still.
This seems to have been an ill-conceived operation, poorly planned for the long term and constructed mendaciously by some hawkish minds within the then US administration. There was, in my view, no need for British involvement at all.
Concerning war crimes there is every point in expecting people to answer for their actions as I feel that it’s unhealthy for society to ignore such activity – if we do, is there any point in having a system of justice?
-
I think one point overlooked is that there were many people who believed that the anti-Saddam faction in Iraq was powerful enough to fill the void after the fall of the Ba'ath Party's leader.
I clearly recall the glee with which I think most people - certainly here in the West - greeted the live televised pictures of Saddam's statue being demolished by Iraqi citizens.
It is not unreasonable, in my view, to suspect that there were many politicians in the West that also thought the anti-Saddam forces would gather swiftly and bring stability in the aftermath. It's all very well and good to say that it was an ill-conceived adventure, but the subsequent interference of Iran and Al-Quaeda took many by surprise.
As I said, hindsight is a very valuable commodity.
-
I think one point overlooked is that there were many people who believed that the anti-Saddam faction in Iraq was powerful enough to fill the void after the fall of the Ba'ath Party's leader.
I clearly recall the glee with which I think most people - certainly here in the West - greeted the live televised pictures of Saddam's statue being demolished by Iraqi citizens.
It is not unreasonable, in my view, to suspect that there were many politicians in the West that also thought the anti-Saddam forces would gather swiftly and bring stability in the aftermath. It's all very well and good to say that it was an ill-conceived adventure, but the subsequent interference of Iran and Al-Quaeda took many by surprise.
As I said, hindsight is a very valuable commodity.
I don't necessarily agree Nick, having regard to the recent conflict between the two nations, the possibility of an Iranian move in the aftermath of regime change within Iraq would certainly have been taken into account - to have disregarded that possibility would have been reckless.
An assessment would also have been made of the likelihood of the new regime having the expertise and organisation to assume to role of government in the light of so many years of oppression under Saddam. In planning, the factional nature of the various groups - and their newly found freedom - would also have been assessed, again, failure to have done so would have been asking for trouble.
Hindsight should have been employed before this operation was engaged, as it would undoubtedly have shown that this region has a habit of bringing grief to those who interfere by way of military force. This is why I regarded this war – and still do – as an ill-conceived operation in the face of all that was known or should have known about the actors in the region.
I doesn’t appear to me that such doe-eyed confidence was employed by the United States in the expectation of a smooth transition of power - the hope was certainly there - but the possibility of the operation going tits-up as a result of some of the factors I have mentioned would certainly have been taken into account.
On foot of all that, I still maintain that this war was wrong-headed in its implementation and there was no need for our country to become involved with the United States in the way we did.
-
I think one point overlooked is that there were many people who believed that the anti-Saddam faction in Iraq was powerful enough to fill the void after the fall of the Ba'ath Party's leader.
I clearly recall the glee with which I think most people - certainly here in the West - greeted the live televised pictures of Saddam's statue being demolished by Iraqi citizens.
It is not unreasonable, in my view, to suspect that there were many politicians in the West that also thought the anti-Saddam forces would gather swiftly and bring stability in the aftermath. It's all very well and good to say that it was an ill-conceived adventure, but the subsequent interference of Iran and Al-Quaeda took many by surprise.
As I said, hindsight is a very valuable commodity.
I don't necessarily agree Nick, having regard to the recent conflict between the two nations, the possibility of an Iranian move in the aftermath of regime change within Iraq would certainly have been taken into account - to have disregarded that possibility would have been reckless.
An assessment would also have been made of the likelihood of the new regime having the expertise and organisation to assume to role of government in the light of so many years of oppression under Saddam. In planning, the factional nature of the various groups - and their newly found freedom - would also have been assessed, again, failure to have done so would have been asking for trouble.
Hindsight should have been employed before this operation was engaged, as it would undoubtedly have shown that this region has a habit of bringing grief to those who interfere by way of military force. This is why I regarded this war – and still do – as an ill-conceived operation in the face of all that was known or should have known about the actors in the region.
I doesn’t appear to me that such doe-eyed confidence was employed by the United States in the expectation of a smooth transition of power - the hope was certainly there - but the possibility of the operation going tits-up as a result of some of the factors I have mentioned would certainly have been taken into account.
On foot of all that, I still maintain that this war was wrong-headed in its implementation and there was no need for our country to become involved with the United States in the way we did.
I wouldn't vehemently disagree with what you say, Zulu. Of course, the aftermath would have been considered, but I believe that there may have been excessive optimism with regard to the anti-Ba'ath Party factions. Unfortunately, when you have years of dictatorship, opposition is often unable to be co-ordinated and so, when the suppression is removed, there is no cohesive force. Of course, as you rightly point out, the Middle East is full of tribal factions - often supported by outside states, so there was always a good chance that it was going to go tits-up as you say. Since I believe the casus belli was regime change, maybe that single goal blinded the decision makers enough to make them underestimate the potential downsides.
Either way, it was probably foolish to go to war (though one must necessarily wonder how history would have turned out if Saddam had remained in power), and it was foolish not to have given more weight to the aftermath - if, indeed, any real attention was paid to that. If that is the case, then I seriously think that the US administration was naive to the point of sheer recklessness.
-
I think one point overlooked is that there were many people who believed that the anti-Saddam faction in Iraq was powerful enough to fill the void after the fall of the Ba'ath Party's leader.
I clearly recall the glee with which I think most people - certainly here in the West - greeted the live televised pictures of Saddam's statue being demolished by Iraqi citizens.
It is not unreasonable, in my view, to suspect that there were many politicians in the West that also thought the anti-Saddam forces would gather swiftly and bring stability in the aftermath. It's all very well and good to say that it was an ill-conceived adventure, but the subsequent interference of Iran and Al-Quaeda took many by surprise.
As I said, hindsight is a very valuable commodity.
I don't necessarily agree Nick, having regard to the recent conflict between the two nations, the possibility of an Iranian move in the aftermath of regime change within Iraq would certainly have been taken into account - to have disregarded that possibility would have been reckless.
An assessment would also have been made of the likelihood of the new regime having the expertise and organisation to assume to role of government in the light of so many years of oppression under Saddam. In planning, the factional nature of the various groups - and their newly found freedom - would also have been assessed, again, failure to have done so would have been asking for trouble.
Hindsight should have been employed before this operation was engaged, as it would undoubtedly have shown that this region has a habit of bringing grief to those who interfere by way of military force. This is why I regarded this war – and still do – as an ill-conceived operation in the face of all that was known or should have known about the actors in the region.
I doesn’t appear to me that such doe-eyed confidence was employed by the United States in the expectation of a smooth transition of power - the hope was certainly there - but the possibility of the operation going tits-up as a result of some of the factors I have mentioned would certainly have been taken into account.
On foot of all that, I still maintain that this war was wrong-headed in its implementation and there was no need for our country to become involved with the United States in the way we did.
I wouldn't vehemently disagree with what you say, Zulu. Of course, the aftermath would have been considered, but I believe that there may have been excessive optimism with regard to the anti-Ba'ath Party factions. Unfortunately, when you have years of dictatorship, opposition is often unable to be co-ordinated and so, when the suppression is removed, there is no cohesive force. Of course, as you rightly point out, the Middle East is full of tribal factions - often supported by outside states, so there was always a good chance that it was going to go tits-up as you say. Since I believe the casus belli was regime change, maybe that single goal blinded the decision makers enough to make them underestimate the potential downsides.
Either way, it was probably foolish to go to war (though one must necessarily wonder how history would have turned out if Saddam had remained in power), and it was foolish not to have given more weight to the aftermath - if, indeed, any real attention was paid to that. If that is the case, then I seriously think that the US administration was naive to the point of sheer recklessness.
That's all we can do now Nick - ponder on what might have been.
Irrespective of intent, the nett result has been a disaster for the region, the United States and of course this country. :(
I'm just about to comment on a very important observation you made in an earler post............v
-
I have just read this interesting view on the subject from Norman Tebbit:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100024183/the-invasion-of-iraq-was-legal-instead-chilcot-should-be-investigating-the-criminal-bungling-that-followed/
Some interesting points, well made, methinks. :y
-
The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. ;)
This is a very imortant obversation Nick :y
This disconnect has been established over the recent past and it will be exploited by those very groups that stand to profit most from this undesirable fact.
The current fuss over AGW, the emphasis on the collective nature of the EU and the attempt by the United Nations to increase its relevance, all afford the possibility of total executive power being abused in this way.
Add in the attempt to expand law enforcement powers to a world-wide status and you have the makings of a new-order dictatorship that will make all that has gone before pale into insignificance.
-
I have just read this interesting view on the subject from Norman Tebbit:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100024183/the-invasion-of-iraq-was-legal-instead-chilcot-should-be-investigating-the-criminal-bungling-that-followed/
Some interesting points, well made, methinks. :y
Indeed so Nick, it not only suggests to me that our government should have foreseen the awaiting chasm but that they were also too busy being blinded by the light of vainglory.
-
The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.
Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.
I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.
The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.
That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.
Just my two-penneth. ;)
I agree with almost all you're saying here. I don't have any sympathy for the point of view that says the Dresden bombing was a war crime, ignoring what was done to Coventry. I can't say I lost loved ones in the blitz, because I was born six months after the war in Europe finished. But my family come from Holland, and I'd have a lot more relatives today if almost the entire Dutch contingent hadn't been carted off to the concentration camps.
Nasty things happen in wars. But once the war is over, the world needs to get on with the peace. I'm appalled by the fact that "war criminals" are being prosecuted 60 years after the war - what's the point? And while I do have a lot of sympathy for the families of the service personnel who lost their lives, I must point out that these people joined the Armed Forces, not the village flower arranging society. To a complete outsider with no military experience whatsoever, it looks to me like getting killed in a war is an occupational hazard for soldiers, and no amount of bitching about the reasons for the war is going to change that
The Iraq war was probably inevitable Saddam made to many enemies both internally and externally. If the USA and UK had not intervened when they did, I think it's quite likely that Israel would eventually have taken some sort of action, and that would have been a disaster on a much grander scale.
Let me make it clear - I absolutely detest Tony Blair. But watching the news last night, I realised that I detest the rent-a-mob outside the hearing building even more. And I detest Gordon Brown even more than that. I don't think Blair has been honest, I don't think that we yet know, or will ever know, the real reasons for his actions, but I don't think there was any way the world could have avoided what happened.
Sorry - too many points - not very coherent. I'll do better next time. :)
Not necessarily in its present manifestation J. I would have thought that a regional conflict was the more likely result following a response by Israel to the perceived threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme - although the increased threat levels posed by some in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories could well have produce the same response.
Saddam's reach as far as Israel is concerned was, I believe, modest. I feel that the United States had a clear intention of establishing a powerbase in the region to be better placed if they needed respond to the looming threat from Iran. As a result, the excuse for invasion offered to the United Nations probably bore no relation to the true motivation of the US administration.
[size=12]What has changed? Yes, Saddam has been removed from power but Iraq has been all but destroyed and, in the absence of the very large US security presence there at the moment, would in all probability descend into outright anarchy with dire regional consequences.[/size]The British presence unfortunately doesn't seem to have had much impact when compared to that of the US commitment. In the end a retreat from Basra seems to be the culmination of our contribution. Such is the intractability of engaging in asymmetric warfare even the US forces have eventually been fought to a stand still.
This seems to have been an ill-conceived operation, poorly planned for the long term and constructed mendaciously by some hawkish minds within the then US administration. There was, in my view, no need for British involvement at all.
Concerning war crimes there is every point in expecting people to answer for their actions as I feel that it’s unhealthy for society to ignore such activity – if we do, is there any point in having a system of justice?
P-E-R-F-E-C-T ! :y :y :y :y
-
I think one point overlooked is that there were many people who believed that the anti-Saddam faction in Iraq was powerful enough to fill the void after the fall of the Ba'ath Party's leader.
I clearly recall the glee with which I think most people - certainly here in the West - greeted the live televised pictures of Saddam's statue being demolished by Iraqi citizens.
It is not unreasonable, in my view, to suspect that there were many politicians in the West that also thought the anti-Saddam forces would gather swiftly and bring stability in the aftermath. It's all very well and good to say that it was an ill-conceived adventure, but the subsequent interference of Iran and Al-Quaeda took many by surprise.
As I said, hindsight is a very valuable commodity.
I don't necessarily agree Nick, having regard to the recent conflict between the two nations, the possibility of an Iranian move in the aftermath of regime change within Iraq would certainly have been taken into account - to have disregarded that possibility would have been reckless.
An assessment would also have been made of the likelihood of the new regime having the expertise and organisation to assume to role of government in the light of so many years of oppression under Saddam. In planning, the factional nature of the various groups - and their newly found freedom - would also have been assessed, again, failure to have done so would have been asking for trouble.
Hindsight should have been employed before this operation was engaged, as it would undoubtedly have shown that this region has a habit of bringing grief to those who interfere by way of military force. This is why I regarded this war – and still do – as an ill-conceived operation in the face of all that was known or should have known about the actors in the region.
I doesn’t appear to me that such doe-eyed confidence was employed by the United States in the expectation of a smooth transition of power - the hope was certainly there - but the possibility of the operation going tits-up as a result of some of the factors I have mentioned would certainly have been taken into account.
On foot of all that, I still maintain that this war was wrong-headed in its implementation and there was no need for our country to become involved with the United States in the way we did.
I wouldn't vehemently disagree with what you say, Zulu. Of course, the aftermath would have been considered, but I believe that there may have been excessive optimism with regard to the anti-Ba'ath Party factions. Unfortunately, when you have years of dictatorship, opposition is often unable to be co-ordinated and so, when the suppression is removed, there is no cohesive force. Of course, as you rightly point out, the Middle East is full of tribal factions - often supported by outside states, so there was always a good chance that it was going to go tits-up as you say. Since I believe the casus belli was regime change, maybe that single goal blinded the decision makers enough to make them underestimate the potential downsides.
Either way, it was probably foolish to go to war (though one must necessarily wonder how history would have turned out if Saddam had remained in power), and it was foolish not to have given more weight to the aftermath - if, indeed, any real attention was paid to that. If that is the case, then I seriously think that the US administration was naive to the point of sheer recklessness.
close to the point.. but not complete..
there are many intelligent think tank institutes in US of which primary goal is mainly politics,strategy and economy and very clever minds there in everyday spending whole their energy and ideas and theories on that subjects..
now 2 choices exist
1. either US administration dont spend even one second to ask them what can happen after >:( >:( >:( (which is most likely what happened)
2. the think tank(s) mislead the administration which is in my opinion is utter 'dangle berries' and impossible..
now dont they (US administration) know they can get detailed probability plans from those organizations , yes they know but problem is something pushed them even not to ask!!!
that something was rather cartels, and their working partners in administration..
they have to have that war whatever price would be there to be paid by public ,
forget about Saddam , he was a created puppet finished his time, rebel against the master and destroyed by the master..
-
oh and I forget one factor, gun-arms industry which can be fed only by war..
edit: must add also, before Iraq operation US economy was gone already tits up..
1 something was necessary to pump money to those mentioned sectors
2 those oil fields were really rich and extra could be found..
only problem was operation continued longer than their estimates and carried their economic picture to a much worse level..
-
oh and I forget one factor, gun-arms industry which can be fed only by war..
edit: must add also, before Iraq operation US economy was gone already tits up..
1 something was necessary to pump money to those mentioned sectors
2 those oil fields were really rich and extra could be found..
only problem was operation continued longer than their estimates and carried their economic picture to a much worse level..
don't know if i'm that cynical, but you're right cem - war has always been good for business :o
as for oil - i think it's the elephant in the room - everyone knows but no one mentions it :-?
-
oh and I forget one factor, gun-arms industry which can be fed only by war..
edit: must add also, before Iraq operation US economy was gone already tits up..
1 something was necessary to pump money to those mentioned sectors
2 those oil fields were really rich and extra could be found..
only problem was operation continued longer than their estimates and carried their economic picture to a much worse level..
don't know if i'm that cynical, but you're right cem - war has always been good for business :o
as for oil - i think it's the elephant in the room - everyone knows but no one mentions it :-?
;D :y