that is pretty dubious - 9/11 occurred prior to the the invasion of Iraq and frankly the arab spring happened organically - there is a good chance Iraq would have been fighting a civil war alongside Syria at the moment regardless... anyway the bomber in this case had a Libyan background/ancestry
Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***
- Thread starter omnomnom
- Start date
that is pretty dubious - 9/11 occurred prior to the the invasion of Iraq and frankly the arab spring happened organically - there is a good chance Iraq would have been fighting a civil war alongside Syria at the moment regardless... anyway the bomber in this case had a Libyan background/ancestry
I said if we didn't get involved ISIS wouldn't be here... which it wouldn't be as it specifically required Iraq to be dysfunctional.
There's no solving 100 years of British/French/American foreign policy in any sensible timeframe, which i can't be bothered arguing.
No I heard on the radio today we didn't want to upset them too much as if we ever leaked anything in the future and the USA cut us off from the intelligence then we would be stuffed as we rely on them much more than the other way round.
Anyway the Americans have been doing it for years and did it after the 7/7 and haven't stopped now. It's just the way they operate that they are as leaky as a seive.
I assume these anti trump intelligence people are the same ones in charge during Bush and leaked everything then as well?
that is a bit of a leap, Iraq could quite easily be dysfunctional now regardless of whether we invaded - we didn't invade Syria after all...
another ISIS-like group could easily have been formed as a result of Syria alone anyway
Are you saying there is evidence Iraq was nuclear capable at the time of the war?
But would they be attacking GB though?
It would appear so. Somebody best let Blair know so he can be absolved and come back into politics again.
if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Yup, I mean we're still bombing ISIS in Syria for a start - though the West is a target for ISIS regardless
Forget the name ISIS, the group is the amalgamation of previous militant groups, who have been going for years. Long long before the Iraq invasion.
I mean the whole getting involved going back decades. If we hadn't would we not have the current issues?
Their main source of manpower (at least after Saddam fell) was the old Iraqi Guard... so i imagine things would be different, but theres so much politics involved (shia revenge against sunnis for Saddam was a major major role).
Honestly dont care, every thread is the same with this, very little point discussing it and hopefully this will be closed come friday when the country resumes.
Much more worried currently with Philippines at the moment.
What do you mean getting involved? Like any intervention ever? From what point? Ignoring Hiter's invasion of Poland? Ignoring Communism? Ignoring the Balkans?
I mean you could say that if we'd been a neutral country for the last century then we'd be less at risk, then again the world might not be such a nice place to live - equally you could say that if we'd not let any muslims come and live here then we'd not have the current issues either but then the sort of country that would ban muslims in general probably wouldn't be a nice place to live.
If we're not going to be a neutral country then I don't see why we should let the sensitivities of some extremists dictate our foreign policy any more than it should affect say immigration policy.
I didn't see confirmation of that on the wikipedia article. There is confirmation that a declassified program recouped non decommissioned chemical weapons in varying states of repair from an anon source, who may or may not have a relationship to the dead dictators regime.
I haven't seen any evidence that capacity to bring wmds beyond their borders existed at that time, certainly nothing to suggest a 45 min attack on the UK was at any point feasible.
As for the harm of the regime as detestable as I found it, based on history and from a utilitarian point of view, it seems unlikely Saddam could killed as many in the same time frame, especially whilst "contained" under UN sanctions.
I remember reading this years ago. Some good reading there
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Nope, he regretted not getting the bomb ready before invading kuwait though.
Interesting QT as well.
I'm not sure what sort of action though, if the 500,000 dead in Iraq, rise of ISIS and utter failure to aid the Kurds tells us something, it's probably that some "actions" really aren't all they were cracked up to be.
Mainly because they're dead or captured and were only ever active locally and far from here so few people around here have even heard of them. The LRA is the only example you can find and it's a debateable whether it's Christian at all. It was founded as an ethnic/nationalist group. It's a very weak comparison. It's like comparing the Wrekin with the Himalayas because they're both areas that are higher than the surrounding areas.
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
You seem to stating this like it differentiates the example from ISIS and Islam...
