Whose world ? yours or all those that lost relatives due to the war. you think a little girl who lost her mother, father, both brothers and her left leg will be thinking 'hey well atleast the world is a better place now' ...hers certainly wouldnt be better.
"Iraq posed no threat to the UK" Says former MI5 Director General
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Whose world ? yours or all those that lost relatives due to the war. you think a little girl who lost her mother, father, both brothers and her left leg will be thinking 'hey well atleast the world is a better place now' ...hers certainly wouldnt be better.
And how about all those who died and tot ethers under Saddam?
More deaths over a shorter time period, for long term stability and better freedom.
Coma red to deaths and tortures at a lower rate but over decades or even hundreds. Of years, if his sons carried on in power. Who were even worse than Saddam himself.
But a lot of those deaths are from "insurgents" and suicide bombers, much of which could have been avoided if us/uk actually put a readable plan for the interim period and supplied the required resources and personnel.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I thought the phrase was commonplace enough not to need explanation but ok, let's go with the emotive singular scenario and expand slightly. I mean that overall, on balance, comparing with Saddam and without then for the majority of people who have any stake and interest in the matter that the World is now better - that doesn't mean that it is better for everyone (if we're going to be picky then I doubt Saddam was thrilled about being deposed and executed either*) or that everyone should be glad about it but simply that Saddam Hussein continuing to rule over Iraq would be doing no-one any favours in the longer term. As it is there is a transitional state over there now and that's always tricky, going from dictatorship to democracy is never easy but it's worth persevering with.
*for the very little it matters I don't think he should have been executed as I don't support the death penalty but that was the choice of the Iraqi justice system.
I'd say this proves the UK was a threat to Iraq not that Iraq was a threat to the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
On the Iraq war, i find this extract from Clausewitz's On War to be most apt:
In application, because the motive for going to war was transient and in retrospect proven to be a lie, we see both extremes here exemplified over time. At first, the people are spoon fed the powerful and inspiring motive of 'removing the necessary evil who can, will and wants to kill you' giving a reasonable weighting to the bloody necessity of war. Afterwards, that justification is eroded to a fallacy, bringing out the political nature of the war and putting it at odds with the blood shed.
In application, because the motive for going to war was transient and in retrospect proven to be a lie, we see both extremes here exemplified over time. At first, the people are spoon fed the powerful and inspiring motive of 'removing the necessary evil who can, will and wants to kill you' giving a reasonable weighting to the bloody necessity of war. Afterwards, that justification is eroded to a fallacy, bringing out the political nature of the war and putting it at odds with the blood shed.
Last edited:
Cool, tell that to the thousands of Iraq's children, men and women who were killed? That's just the innocent ones.
If anything, the UK posed more thread to Iraq.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Yeah man! Oil is so cheap now.
Than whom? Saddam?
Wait, don't answer.
/backs out of thread
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Only if you'll tell the 5000 Kurds that Saddam killed that he was nicer than us?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
You assume by my post that I don't care for civilian deaths ?
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707 - Petrodollar Warfare, interesting read..
In case no-one is aware, we fight wars not only for the interests of others, but also for our own interests, be they social, economic or otherwise.
The Iraqi regime was a threat to us albeit indirectly, he was also a threat to the region and to portions of his own people. We were in a position to do something about his regime, it converged with interests of our in the region and people are foolish if they think that securing our energy needs and removing unstable threats to the Middle East on which we are dependent is not a valid reason for using military force when other options are exhausted.
Africa is a different situation entirely, we have little or no interest in Africa, and when we did, we also fought various campaigns in Africa.
Bad mistakes were made in Iraq, especially after the initial invasion, mainly due to poor administrative decisions from the US Govt, namely Bush and his cohorts. This however does not mean that removing Hussein was not in our interests because it was.
Is it not?
Lets pick a random African atrocity shall we? Darfur?
Where is Darfur? It's in Sudan.
And what is Sudan's biggest export?
Oh, it appears to be oil
I don't see the difference between invading a country to ensure oil and invading countries for domination ala World Wars. I think it's horrible and disgusting behaviour.
Killing innocent civilians and people fighting for their freedom and their country and killing our own soldiers who are sent there under lies.
Killing innocent civilians and people fighting for their freedom and their country and killing our own soldiers who are sent there under lies.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Yet Hussein was one of the few middle east dictators who was openly hostile to AQ.
Strange set up given his hatred of the west.
Strange set up given his hatred of the west.
[TW]Fox;19946057 said:Is it not?
Lets pick a random African atrocity shall we? Darfur?
Where is Darfur? It's in Sudan.
And what is Sudan's biggest export?
Oh, it appears to be oil
Pleased for you Fox.
Must try harder next time.
Seriously, is that all I get? You accuse the West of not intervening because there is 'no oil' and thats all I get as a reply when I point out how.. they had oil?
Seems like you are just another 'Yea screw the government! boo!! its all media lies!' type, at least some of the others on that side of the fence bother to research what they are spouting off about rather than just make things up and hope nobody notices. How ironic.