Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

[The Running Man]

Look it up. It is is irrelevent to the reasons for the invasion in 1991, or those of 2003.

The mistakes made by all parties in the conduct of the Iraq war are not really under discussion here, the topic is supposed to be about a Gurka who beheaded a Taliban Fighter.


The bold part doesn't make sense.

castiel its relevent to your post which i was enquiring further about. you stated:

The point is that the 2003 war simply finished what should have been finished in 1991. If it had thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites would still be alive today.

i am asking who is causing the problems today in iraq under the assumption that at least one of those 2 factions is involved in some way.

the bold part does make sense, if you read it and try to comprehend the question. If you read the guardian article it says that the iraq military could become divided. i am asking what are the dividing lines? its not Kurds and Shi'ites is it?

 

[Castiel]

Only he wasn't a leader then. He was a VP at the time and was advising Saddam to intensify his bombing campaign against Iran and providing him with intelligence too.

Take you conspiracy theories elsewhere, You have answered your own question.

He was the Vice President of the United States showing support to a country with which they were allies at the time.

So your point is what exactly?

 

[naefeart]

So did we find out if we actually got the right *Taliban dude?

As nasty as it sounded, I have no issue with what this Gurkha did, infact he should get a pat on the back.

And to those talking about the guy doing a David Bailey in the middle of a firefight - good lord. Easy to sit behind a keyboard and speculate what he should and shouldn't have done. We weren't there, who are we to say what action he should have taken in that situation

I hope he gets off with a minor disciplinary.

 

[Amnesia]

If Saddaam had remained in power and continued to become ever more unstable, especially in the face of increased pressure by his neighbours, namely Iran there is every reason to beleive he would have posed an increased threat to the region.

threat with what ? his broken army ? the wmd's ?

Simply having an Iraq that was susceptable to expansion of Iranian Islamism is a threat to the region, so just becasue Saddaam did not have the weapons he claimed to have does not negate the risk to the region.

what are you talking about ? Iran are mainly Shia and Saddams Bath party are Sunni. bit like the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan who fight against each other.

Either way you cannot prove that not invading in 2003 would have saved lives in the long run so unless you can prove it your claim is spurious.

currently people die pretty much every day with road side bombs or some other attack.

at the time of the invasion people were being killed by _______ ?
i'm waiting for you to fill in the blank.

 

[gettothechopper]

And to those talking about the guy doing a David Bailey in the middle of a firefight - good lord. Easy to sit behind a keyboard and speculate what he should and shouldn't have done. We weren't there, who are we to say what action he should have taken in that situation

I hope he gets off with a minor disciplinary.

Im not speculating, the fact he has been called back to the uk shows you that the action he did take was incorrect

I also hope he gets off lightly, but plenty of less grizzly options could have been used

 

[Glaucus]

My point is was it wise for the British government to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan when it is an American problem (created by the American and should be dealt with by the Americans)?.

It Is a world problem. Needing a world solution. Which is why I said UN needs some balls.

Afghan was not Americas problem, they refused to hand over terrorist and ensure training grounds where taken out. If they complied there would have been no afghan war.

 

[Glaucus]

Is it?
Why didn't the British government send troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

Who knows.
Cost, purpose and public opinion.

Thing is we should not need to do these on our own. UN should be "policing" the world. Something it fails at.
I mean they hardly ever took further actions despite Iraq failing to comply almost daily.

 

[Castiel]

castiel its relevent to your post which i was enquiring further about. you stated:



i am asking who is causing the problems today in iraq under the assumption that at least one of those 2 factions is involved in some way.

Al Qaeda supported Sunni and Shia militia's are operating in Iraq, for the most part they are external if the reports are to be believed. Groups such as the PKK operate from northern Iraq into Turkish Kurdistan, but as far as I am aware they are not responsible for the recent bombings in Iraq proper.

The situation is like most unstable regions somewhat complicated by historical differences be it cutural or religious such as the shia/sunni sectarianism, the idea is to create a country whose elected government represents all the factions, but the problem is that many peole in the west try to compare their way fo life with one that is disparate in so many ways.

Iraq and contries like it have been for generations been under the yoke of one specific faction or the other and the weaker faction has been brutally treated by the other while they are in power.

Groups with an external agenda such as al Qaeda will take advantage of the inherent weakness in a new democracy and the sectarian differences to further their own agenda. Look at Somalia for example, while Somalia is less of a threat to Western security it has become completely lawless, Iraq due to it's oil and location in the Persian Gulf is critical to Western security, be it economic or strategic, so a stable Iraq is imperative to secure the region and combat the threat Iran poses to the region.

the bold part does make sense, if you read it and try to comprehend the question. If you read the guardian article it says that the iraq military could become divided. i am asking what are the dividing lines? its not Kurds and Shi'ites is it?

Now it makes sense, it didn't before as you neglected to specifiy which military or why it would divide.

I think the above answer will shed some light on the differences culturally within Iraq and how easily they are exploited.

 

[The Running Man]

so would you agree that although saddam did kill many shia's kurds etc he was effective at stopping them from warring with each other to an extent that we will not be able to due to our inability to use brutalistic dictatorial methodology as exemplified under the previous regime?

and though yes saddam was guilty of killing many shi, shias and kurds, that without him possibly even more will die through civil unrest and internal conflicts that we will never be able to sort or understand.

if you read this:

and udnerstand that US went in for the Oil, missed out on forcing the oil law through, missed all the contracts and now there is no economic reason to stay, just leave and let the country crumble again?

if their companies had won the contracts would they have stayed?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

which tells me that the US didnt go in to oust saddam to stop his 'atrocities' as these killings will now continue unchecked once US leaves

 

[naefeart]

Im not speculating, the fact he has been called back to the uk shows you that the action he did take was incorrect

Indeed, the top brass sitting behind their comfy desks back home in blightly. I'm sure they understood exactly the situation this soldier faced while being shot at by the Taliban.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Indeed, the top brass sitting behind their comfy desks back home in blightly. I'm sure they understood exactly the situation this soldier faced while being shot at by the Taliban.

Those top brass sitting comfortably behind their desks will have a very good idea, as they will have seen combat at some point in their career.

 

[Glaucus]

so would you agree that although saddam did kill many shia's kurds etc he was effective at stopping them from warring with each other to an extent that we will not be able to due to our inability to use brutalistic dictatorial methodology as exemplified under the previous regime?

Great morals and logic that.
Again compare it to N Ireland should it be ruled with an iron fist innocent people killed by government.

Or should we accept that it is a super hard task and play the long game over several+ decades.

 

[Castiel]

threat with what ? his broken army ? the wmd's ?

You fail to appreciate the instablity of a dictator, look at Somalia and tell me that a lawless state in the Persian Gulf such as that would have increased our security. Are you so blind that you cannot understand that not all threats are military, the more unstable he became, the more unpredictable. Also remember he broke the UN sanctions imposed on him constantly.

what are you talking about ? Iran are mainly Shia and Saddams Bath party are Sunni. bit like the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan who fight against each other.

This just shows your ignorance of the relationship between Iran and Iraq. The Ba'ath party were minority rulers in Iraq. The weaker Sadaam became the more open to Iranian influence the Shi'ite militias of Iraq became. He put down several uprisings due to Iranian influence within Shi'ite factions within Iraq. Do you think that Iran would not take the opportunity to expand their sphere of influence into Iraq. You are very naive if you do, it is one of the main fears even now with the US withdrawal of combat troops.

at the time of the invasion people were being killed by _______ ?
i'm waiting for you to fill in the blank.

Saddam Hussein backed Sunni Militia amongst others.

 

[Castiel]

so would you agree that although saddam did kill many shia's kurds etc he was effective at stopping them from warring with each other to an extent that we will not be able to due to our inability to use brutalistic dictatorial methodology as exemplified under the previous regime?

and though yes saddam was guilty of killing many shi, shias and kurds, that without him possibly even more will die through civil unrest and internal conflicts that we will never be able to sort or understand.

if you read this:

and udnerstand that US went in for the Oil, missed out on forcing the oil law through, missed all the contracts and now there is no economic reason to stay, just leave and let the country crumble again?

if their companies had won the contracts would they have stayed?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

which tells me that the US didnt go in to oust saddam to stop his 'atrocities' as these killings will now continue unchecked once US leaves

Except that they are not leaving, they have ceased combat operations and that is different. there are still ober 50,000 US troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi Army and Government.


Also the 'do nothing approach' you suggest is short sighted. As AcidHell states it is a long process and while the process is difficult (especially so with external insurgencies) it does not make it pointless.

 

[The Running Man]

Great morals and logic that.
Again compare it to N Ireland should it be ruled with an iron fist innocent people killed by government.

Or should we accept that it is a super hard task and play the long game over several+ decades.

its not about morals or logic, its about facing the reality of the situation.

Will we ever be able to broker a peace between these dissident factions?

Given how well we have achieved peace with Israel/palestine

or the taliban? or the irish?

id say history sets a trend that we will not be able to do this. and as we are pulling out almost unilaterally then it is obvious we arent even going to try, we are going to leave them to civil war amongst themselves:/

for your and celestials benefit i will requote the quote in the guardian:

In Baghdad the mood remains fearful. "It scares me to think that the Americans are leaving," said Umm Ali, 33, in the streets of Arasat, a well-to-do suburb. "If 144,000 soldiers could not control the situation here, how will things improve when there are only 50,000 here and they all stay in their camps?

 

[meghatronic]

Castiel you have more patience than humanly possible.

 

[^TANK^]

personally dont see the problem, bosses demand proof the man is dead, i'm sure dumping his head on their desk would prove this about time these barbarians got a taste of their own medicine so well done that man

 

[Glaucus]

Of course you can have we not got peace in NI, keep it going and eventually as new generations come through hostilities decrease.
Just like the rest of the uk, well apart from that one Cornish group who set there own buildings on fire.

These things take ages, but you can get there. Don't do anything and you never get change.

The world is not this small place anymore. it has planes, ICBMs, nuclear weapons and that's ignoring small groups.

We need regional stability and eventually world stability.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel you have more patience than humanly possible.

tbh, it amazes me at the blindness of people and the way they only see a single aspect of a very complex and unstable situation.

We only have to look at Yugoslavia and the resulting Bosnian conflict to see what doing nothing until it is too late accommplishes. We didn't have external factions supported by al-Qaeda then either.

 

[Castiel]

Of course you can have we not got peace in NI, keep it going and eventually as new generations come through hostilities decrease.
Just like the rest of the uk, well apart from that one Cornish group who set there own buildings on fire.

These things take ages, but you can get there. Don't do anything and you never get change.

The world is not this small place anymore. it has planes, ICBMs, nuclear weapons and that's ignoring small groups.

We need regional stability and eventually world stability.