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

I aint handing in my MOD avatar i will be on RR a damn sight more i think .
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Aaah, I've been wanting to post on this thread but it's rather a hot potato I must say...

I recommend reading this link, although registration to the forum is required, it's a very good debate by some amateur historians on the Iraq war.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=47062&highlight=happens+iraq


Was Britain right to invade Iraq?

Lawfully I'd say no, but on behalf of moral reasons I'd say yes. There's no doubt in my mind that Saddam was a sick & evil B* & the world is better off without him & his sons. I'm just very curious as to why we haven't taken out Robert Mugabe as he has far more reason to go than Saddam ever did.

Should the PM be impeached?

No, though I doubt he had much choice, our alliance with America is important for the stability of the world & the balance of power. Would we be better off with the Chinese, Russians or South American countries calling the shots?

Though we weren't involved with conflicts like Vietnam, I think it's important we were involved in Iraq because of economic & political reasons. The f35, rebuilding Iraqi industry etc is all big £$. Also the fact that our nukes & much other technology is dependent on American design. The war in Iraq is rather like politically correct imperialism, unfortunately in this world the dollar is more expensive than life.

Should we leave now?

No, it would be a disgrace to pull out now, we broke it so we brought it... Unfortunately there may be some bloodshed & conflict still to come but very few backward countries come into the modern world with peaceful resolution.

~

Naturally the thought of bringing democracy to a Middle Eastern & highly religious country foreign to such beliefs is a daunting prospect. But we must also consider the numbers involved in other similar conflicts. In the first year of the Vietnam war casualty figures were far higher than any sustained in the iraqi fighting thus far. Though the causes were somewhat different, it was still a guerilla war fought with guns & against a hidden enemy. If the whole of Iraq really was in civil war & out to kill every westerner I'd expect a far higher casualty rate. Certainly city fighting & road side bombs would be seen to a far greater extent.

I never seriously considered that the war would be a short one, but I also don't think we are losing.


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

Vesper, you mention the losses in Viet Nam. That war ended in an acrimonious defeat for the Yanks. And Irag looks like being another Viet Nam. I don't think democracy, as we know it, will ever work in the Middle East as the way the countries were carved up in the first place gave no thought to tribal areas, just like Africa, so you will always have factions fighting each other. I reckon civil war will start out when the Yanks pull out if it hasn't already started.

As if the Yanks have not got enough on their plate, their sabre rattling is now turning to Iran and any war there will make Irag look like a day at the beach. The days of gunboat diplomacy are long gone.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

sidon55 said:
Vesper, you mention the losses in Viet Nam. That war ended in an acrimonious defeat for the Yanks. And Irag looks like being another Viet Nam. I don't think democracy, as we know it, will ever work in the Middle East as the way the countries were carved up in the first place gave no thought to tribal areas, just like Africa, so you will always have factions fighting each other. I reckon civil war will start out when the Yanks pull out if it hasn't already started.

As if the Yanks have not got enough on their plate, their sabre rattling is now turning to Iran and any war there will make Irag look like a day at the beach. The days of gunboat diplomacy are long gone.

Exactly, the losses in Vietnam were far higher than the losses sustained so far in Iraq, ergo it can't be as bad as Vietnam. Though it's not quite a Malayan Emergency either... I don't think we'll be invading Iran, we're too over stretched as it is, political pressure is the only weapon I see USA/UK using in the not too distant future.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history~ Hegel
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Levers , excellent series of posts.

Just one thing , I think you meant 'Somalia' instead of Sudan?
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

PartTimePongo said:
Levers , excellent series of posts.

Just one thing , I think you meant 'Somalia' instead of Sudan?

Both the same right?

Joke

Nice to see you back PTP.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Can I recommend the last collection of Alistair Cooke's Letters from America? I listened to AC's gentle but insightful meanderings on most Friday evenings over the last couple of decades and still miss the old boy.

The first page of the first letter in the latest volume (from the 1940s) suggests that the newly emerging "world power" has never known how to deal with people once the war fighting is over. This lesson is taking a very long time to learn, it would seem.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

1. Strictly speaking, we didn't invade. We just followed the Yanks (as we seem to be doing more often these days). We should have solved the problem first time round.
2. Don't think he should be impeached; but it's ruddy well time he buggered off.
3. Too late now; it would be worse if we left now before the Iraqi's get on their feet properly.

I'm heading out that way shortly. Lucky me! 8)
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

I think most people know that Iraq and its' people will revert to form sooner or later so we might as well get out and let them get on with it. I know we shouldn't have gone, it hasn't helped and sticking around will just prolong the agony.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Now I have the book in front of me, I can give you the quote:

"Americans are not particularly good at sensing the real elements of another people's culture........It also makes them poor administrators on foreign soil. They find it almost impossible to believe that poorer peoples, far from the Statue of Liberty, should not want in their heart of hearts to become Americans. If it should happen that America, in its new period of world power, comes to do what every other world power has done: if Americans should ever have to govern large numbers of foreigners, you must expect that Americans will be well hated before they are admired for themselves".

Alistair Cooke "The Immigrant Strain" 6 May 1946
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

SILVER_FOX said:
We should have solved the problem first time round.

In what way?

When asked on Pamorama in 1994 if he believed that the Coalition forces should have carried on to Baghdad an liquidated Saddam Hussein, Norman Schwartzkopf said:

"...hell no, sir. We'd still be there to this day, stuck like a dinosaur in a mud pool."

Prophetic stuff, y'reckon?

Besides, the UN Security council only sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait, not the liquidation of Iraq.

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

Levers_Aligned said:
SILVER_FOX said:
We should have solved the problem first time round.

... the UN Security council only sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait, not the liquidation of Iraq.

Levers

Stormin' Norman is a general officer with respect and concern for the troops under his command, not a politician. If it was acceptable to effect regime change by Bush Jr, it would have been more so for Bush Snr to extend the mission in Gulf 1. After all, the atrocities being spoken about now preceded Gulf 1 and the Iraqi armed forces presumably had WMD at the time!

It's reminiscent of the conquest of Nazi Germany, when Montgomery's was a lonely voice insisting on the Western Allies not stopping their advance before reaching Moscow, because he saw the danger of Stalin's Soviet empire.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Levers – Interesting quote from Stormin’ Norman; I hadn’t heard that one before.

As far as the Security Council only sanctioning the liberation of Kuwait and not Iraq – true, but as a rule that hasn’t stopped our American cousins before.

The issue now is whether they find an excuse to move on Iran and we follow them … because that’s what we do.
 
Re: IRAQ - So, should we, or shouldn't we ? Strength of

Well my time has rolled up again and I am heading to Saddams sand pit on tonights flight. Right or wrong, the civvy security industry is doing ok there now ta very much. I'll let any interested parties know what the latest is when I get back. If Norman Kember turns up again I'll give him Rumrations love and a kick ***********.
Time to go and steal some Iraqi oxygen.
TTFN
Ling
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top