Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of fee

On reflection was Britain right to invade Iraq?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Should we leave now?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    778
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Dear Hobbit, why it matters (maybe only to me) is explained in my offending post.

Returning to topic, 'diesel' wrote

Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't nerve gas a weapon of mass destruction ?

The guy used it on the Kurds and many other people.

It is and he did. But that was (IIRC) 1988. Perhaps Saddam had no weapons by 2003 because he’d used them all up. Just a thought.
Anyway, Bliar will tell you that the war (and subsequent total pot mess) in Iraq was/is about bringing democracy to Iraq. WMD no longer figure in Bliar's spin.

Hope he never fancies bringing democracy to China. :roll:
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Seadog said:
Dear Hobbit, why it matters (maybe only to me) is explained in my offending post.


I believe you have included the two main points in your comment with offending post and why it matters only to you maybe. The thread was created to get an idea what people think about three issues regarding Iraq not correct spelling. What you feel matters to you maybe doesn't matter to other people on the site. Even then you were unable to resist the slimey sarcasm with the reference to Wyatt Earp, not simply point out the error. I believe that reveals an interesting feature of your character and with that little insight I will be following your future contributions with added interest. To close this pointless discussion please keep what matters to you to yourself and get a life.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

The concept of democracy in the region ( Iraq ) would be amusing if it wasn't for the blood bath it is at the moment. I feel confident in saying, " never happen", democracy in Iraq. Sadly, while this is being proved, many innocent people will die. Regions such as this have had too many conflicting interests from way before the coalition of the willing poked their noses in. The turmoil has been going on for centuries I believe.
Not only that, the democracies at present trying to establish democracy in Iraq are hardly encouraging examples with the violence and corruption rife in all three, USA-UK and Australia. An inquirey currently in progress in Australia is examining claims that the Australian Wheat Board was paying big bribes to SH's regime to keep the contract of food for oil operating in line with United Nations protocols. This was rather in conflict with the fact that Australia had servicemen in the area in the search for the WOMD.That's politics for you.
Rather unfortunate such attention was not directed to Tibet when that harmless country was taken over. An interesting situation there with a very powerful nation establishing itself high above another thriving economy. A potentially explosive situation there I believe with a short fuse waiting to be lighted. Interesting times we live in. It's a worry.
:roll:
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

I don’t fully agree with the UK and the US invading Iraq and I believe that there is no need for further take overs etc.

Ok, Saddam was mad, not a good leader etc list could go on there but he is locked up.

I think the UK only have a right to become peace keepers in Iraq until certain situation are resolves and the same goes to the states.

I won’t sit here and argue till I’m blue in the face, what’s the point. What’s done is done, we can’t turn back time but we can prevent for the future.

Or something like that.

But you have to ask, are we the puppet and bush is our master. Seems a bit funny that bush is wanting more power than peace
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Navy1 said:
1. Was Britain right to invade?
2. Should the PM be impeached?
3. Should we leave now?

1. No. We were mostly duped, with not-so-clever smoke and mirrors. For me, the case for attack fell apart with Colon Powell’s fabulous Powerpoint to the United Nations in February 2003, just before the balloon went up. No irrefutable evidence was submitted, yet we were all supposed to get mighty excited at satellite imagery and a computer-generated sketch of a mobile chemical factory, and a recorded phone call which I could have knocked up on Cool Edit Pro. If that is what was required to go to war, then my arse is a box of doughnuts. As for Blair, I’d say that if he had any choice in which to join the Crusad…Coalition, then I’d be surprised. Faced with DML (Guzz dockyard, that is…our only Trident refuelling and refitting base) being owned by KBR (or Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s ‘old’ firm) and the upcoming F35 project, QinetiQ being 33% owned by Halliburton and other such transatlantic foibles, let alone any private conversations going on between W Bush and himself (NB – John Major is the CEO of the Carlyle Group, another Bush cash cow) whatever the great unwashed opines about the legality and morality of occupying a foreign state means jack shit to no one. That is not detracting from the fact that our forces shouldn’t obey orders and complete the mission. I’d just say that it is a trifle rich using the pure souls of volunteers to secure the greed of those petrocrats, and keep them there ‘towelheads’ from sourcing the mineral wealth their land stands on. America, on the other hand, fails to learn the lessons that we British learned to learn, and it’s an indication of a young nation too powerful for it’s own good. We have spent millennia being whupped and whupping, and it sometimes, not always, tempers our ardour for coveting. Right now, however, we are led by a cabal of parliamentarians and career politicians, who have never served one fat, stinking minute in the armed services, and whose sons and daughters are fed through the lawschool conveyer belt and again, will never salute, march, eat shit food or face the pure terror of rounds inbound on their position. Who, in essence, are they to judge what we do? Who are they to boast we are the ‘best armed forces in the world’ (copyright – too many to mention) Do they really…really see it for real, or a cleansed version, paint-fresh and details only?

In any case, what’s it matter, anyway? The drive for mineral wealth of the middle east is now laid bare, and the only balance of that is the internet, and media, when it can be arsed. How we get in this mess is another thing, and how we get out too complicated to even consider. In my mind, as soon as Bush was elected, the best way to set this awful machine in motion was to terrify the American public, and they are easily scared. Show them a black guy scaling a garden fence and running from the feds and they will shoot the TV through with their rifles. Collude with middle eastern middle-men into arranging a religious-based collection of nutters (mainly Sa’udis, you notice) to hijack jets and fly them into buildings and pretty soon every good ol’ boy is pressing the speed dial to their Congressman urging them to load up them ships and go kick the A-rabs arses. Show them photographs of some guy with a beard (or any guy with a beard, for that matter) yelling ‘Allah Akhbar!’ and then you have your direct-replacement-instant-enemy, which used to be occupied by great-coat wearing, Breznev look-alikes with snow on their boots. See the money pour into the defence coffers, see the cash gout from the pipe marked ‘reconstruction’…and the band plays on. Not think it could happen? Well, the petrochemical industry is worth trillions of dollars, the cost of the September 11 attacks a shade less than a million bucks. As ‘Merkins would say, you do the math.

“…sir, if we’d have ‘pressed on’, as you say…and taken Baghdad, we’d still be stuck there like a dinosaur in a mudpool…â€

Norman Schwartzkopf – 1994

The benefits of hindsight are great. The benefits of foresight are ******* fantastic, in my opinion.

2. No. I doubt it would be politically possible or constitutionally viable to impeach Blair. What tangible proof do we have that he lied? Better for him to see out his tasteless tenure and retire to quieter pastures, on the proviso he doesn’t use his memoirs to justify what was plainly bad statesmanship and a horrendous political blunder. Again, if and when he goes, we will only be lumbered with another celebrity, someone who sees it fit to pare down our armed forces even further and place individual’s personal greed way above the nation’s security, and the morale of those called upon to drive oil tankers, put out fires with shit equipment, cull livestock and put to sea on under-resourced war vessels. We will never, ever get full transparency over just how much cash is squandered in the corridors of power on junkets, deals and **** ups, but I’d wager we could keep the recently scrapped T23s running indefinitely on a small fraction of it. Accountable to the people? Maybe every five years. That is where the scandal lies, and the nation, those who walk the streets to work every day and wipe their own arses, can do nothing about it. There is nothing to protect this nation’s people from government, except the fast thinning red/blue/sky blue line. With the youth of today pissed on consumerism and voter turnout at the mercy of Eastenders, how can we call this a democracy?

3. No. We can’t leave Iraq to fall into a scalding hell of anarchy and fundamentalist dogma. After wrecking their country, exposing the whole region to the sheer hell of civil war and terrorism and impoverishing their people, would that be a decent, fertile recruiting ground for Islamists and nut-bars to come in, wind up the uneducated and set them running in our direction? There is a mission to complete, but in my eyes it is going to take decades. Western forces will only draw out when every last drip of oil is bled from these regions, and given the 2001 ‘attacks’, the policy of stamping one foot into Afghanistan and one now in Iraq, the US can piss with impunity into any of the surrounding oil-rich states, and keep those lovely Sa’udis happy, with their great human rights record and all. It was either Yanks or the Chinese who cornered it first, and given Chinese technology being twenty years astern of the Yanks, something had to give in the end.


Levers
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

finknottle said:
Levers_Aligned, An excellent and well balanced piece of work, do I know you?

Not sure. You changed your name recently?

Levers
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Nice one LA
Never thought about the true reasons you mention in para 3 .
America is running out of oil --------but the take over of an oil rich country
with the 'hand on heart 'WMD excuse sure takes the biscuit!!

The bad news bit is getting the oil peaceably . That country /area is a hot bed of tribal/religeous sects--- . Was it not called Mesopotamia in days gone by . I believe the UK tried to tame it at one time--and gave up.

I think they should ask S. H to take the place over again--with a free pass from his war crimes etc and then the US and UK could aid him .
For all his supposed faults when he was leading the place it was a reasonable place to stay--within constraints!!
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Greenie said:
Nice one LA
Never thought about the true reasons you mention in para 3 .
America is running out of oil --------but the take over of an oil rich country
with the 'hand on heart 'WMD excuse sure takes the biscuit!!

I wouldn't say 'true reasons', as such. It's chiefly my own assumptions, based upon observation. Many I speak to reel in horror at the prospect of America's problems lying within their own borders...their own government, and even their own people. If you had been raised amongst some of these simply venal motherfuckers and your lineage was in danger of running out of cash because the oil tit was about to be sucked flat, what would you do? Considering you have disgusting amounts of money and influence in the highest and most powerful levels on the planet? Face it, America cannot simply blunder into another war where footage of bodybags and the sheer gory hell of conflict is broadcast every evening as it was circa 1967. They need the public firmly onside this time, and the only way to do this is to gain influence in the media (check out some of their news channels) and maintain a level of fear in the hearts of the nation. What better way than the image of Bin Laden, a religion that can be easily demonised and the spectacle of fully fuelled aircraft tearing into three (could have been four) of America's mightiest symbols of freedom?

The bad news bit is getting the oil peaceably . That country /area is a hot bed of tribal/religeous sects--- . Was it not called Mesopotamia in days gone by . I believe the UK tried to tame it at one time--and gave up.

I'd say more likely that the oil companies have no strategy to gain oil 'peaceably'. The machinery of governmental foreign policy...the military...is a far more cost effective tool than striking a deal with a race of people whom most inluential Americans despise or don't understand. Besides, it would mean striking a further Sa'udi-like agreement and appeasing fundamentalists. As the Jewsih lobby on Capitol Hill gains more ground, it's about as likely as plaiting blancmange. There is no other way of doing it. Gain the backing of the people by demonising the new enemy and hey presto, the same country has 15% of the world's oil reserves beneath the sand as a convenient bonus. You don't hear Bush bleating too much about Mugabe or any other brutal dictatorship in Central Africa, do you? When it came to intervention in Sudan it was done in such a half-arsed way that Yank troops were needlessly slaughtered.

I think they should ask S. H to take the place over again--with a free pass from his war crimes etc and then the US and UK could aid him .
For all his supposed faults when he was leading the place it was a reasonable place to stay--within constraints!!

Whoa, there boy! Saddam to return? Christ, no. Not even in anyone's lifetime. The man was an insane despot (not much differnet to Bush, then...) and had no right to be running any country under any flag. If he were to return, the first thing he would do is bankrupt Iraq just to acquire WMD to exact revenge. There would also be a huge kick-off with Iran again and another expansion outwards. No. We have him caged now, thankfully and the best we can hope for is that the terrorists can be either brought under control by sheer might (doubtful) or they can be politicised (even further doubtful) and negotiated with. See Jewish Lobby in Congress for that answer. Saddam would never be a puppet of any western alliance. His tenure is done. He should not be executed, he should stand trial fairly and be imprisoned indefinately.

Levers
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

The Middle East like Africa was divided up with no thought as to the local tribes, so you will always have conflict between the Shi'ites and Sunni & Kurds etc., just like you have in Africa where borders cross tribal lands
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

1. No - If it wasn't right to carry on to Baghdad in GW1, then it wasn't right to go back.

2. No. TB decided on our behalf according to p*** poor reading of the intelligence by his advisers.

3. No. Having gone in for the wrong reasons, it cannot be right to withdraw before the Iraqi government is stable and able to manage on its own.

This thread has hit on other subjects such as Mugabe and Zimbabwe and why haven't "we" done something about it?

Iraq has lots of oil. Zimbabwe (as far as I know) has no oil.

QED
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

someone made a statement saying US is running out of oil ,bollocks
Alaska is the US back up after raping all others.
Bush is gone next election........unless
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Tingara said:
someone made a statement saying US is running out of oil ,bollocks
Alaska is the US back up after raping all others.
Bush is gone next election........unless


Think you should start reading a better class of newspaper
Bush has made a Presidential statement about the US and its dependance on external sourced oil-they are now digging for more--however same as UK at what cost--now the oil prices are likely to remain high Aberdeen is overflowing with work --
Yes oil but at what cost to recover it .

Same as Gas ----- we are now buying from Russia

Cheap fuel is a thing of the past .
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top