Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

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 !

[cem_devecioglu]

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..

[cem_devecioglu]

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..

[Banjax]

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 

as for oil - i think it's the elephant in the room - everyone knows but no one mentions it  :-?

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

as for oil - i think it's the elephant in the room - everyone knows but no one mentions it  :-?