Was the Philippines in the coalition that invaded Iraq?
Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***
- Thread starter omnomnom
- Start date
Kind of hard to disagree with what Corbin is saying in the headlines today. The question is what's the priority - reducing terrorism here or trying to 'help' civilians abroad. Hmmm...
It's not even that straightforward. The consequences of reducing international military action could be increased terrorism. I don't know.
It's not even that straightforward. The consequences of reducing international military action could be increased terrorism. I don't know.
No we didn't invade Syria, ISIS (who appeared in IRAQ after a botched invasion/in statement of democracy) did the Invading.
What is a leap, is to suggest despite our weapons killing a population of people twice the size of a medium sized UK city it may well have all been the same.
Who will the probable 10's-100 of thousands of mums and dads who lost their kids in the region, hold ill will against?
Frankly nothing has been evidenced here that suggests anything that the rest of the world and the UN didn't already think and state at the time was somehow wrong. Saddam was contained and diminishing both domestically and internationally, there was no realistic terror threat to US or Allies, Weapons Inspectors would likely have continued to diminish the stock of what appeared to be a Chemical weapons program.
Quite separate from Terror, ignoring the UN (which did not back the actions) has diminished the institution existentially, this unilateral approach from Bush and Blair has not likely made the world more stable between nation states let alone home grown one off nut jobs!
Makes me laugh how people are claiming Corbyn has politicised the events because of his speech.
What should he do, then not even acknowledge it and get torn down for not speaking about it.
Rightly so people will want to hear our leaders and possible leadersopinions on this, and in typical style May talks about tackling them online.
What should he do, then not even acknowledge it and get torn down for not speaking about it.
Rightly so people will want to hear our leaders and possible leadersopinions on this, and in typical style May talks about tackling them online.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Wow, original.
lol yea genocide, attempted annextion of a neighbouring state and start a war with Iran to keep the "peace"
A man walks into a mosque in iraq and blows himself up....... FFS BUSH AND BLAIR....
He has, but then he is a politician so it is part of his job.
He isn't really offering any solutions though, just saying we shouldn't have done stuff we have already done. "I told you so" isn't really all that helpful.
Problem with what Corbyn has said is that implies he's willing to change foreign policy as a direct result of the slaughter of children in Manchester. That would be a massive boost for the terrorists and encourage more attacks across the West. I don't think anyone is defending the decision to invade Iraq anymore, it's clear it was a disaster and the people responsible should be held to account (but unfortunately never will), likewise Libya. It's time to face facts, we are losing this clash of cultures between Islam and the West - we need to up our game to have any chance of reversing that, and I don't think Corbyn is the man to do it. Corbyn voted against thirteen key pieces of anti-terror legislation let's not forget.
Edit: Some other inconsistencies with Corbyn's position:
1) If intervention causes terror, why did the interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Serbia and Sierra Leone not result in terror attacks by the people we intervened against?
2) Why have France, Germany, Mali, Central African Republic, Nigeria and the Philippines, who did not take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, been targets of Islamic terrorism?
3) Why has Poland, who did take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not been affected by Islamic terrorism?
Edit: Some other inconsistencies with Corbyn's position:
1) If intervention causes terror, why did the interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Serbia and Sierra Leone not result in terror attacks by the people we intervened against?
2) Why have France, Germany, Mali, Central African Republic, Nigeria and the Philippines, who did not take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, been targets of Islamic terrorism?
3) Why has Poland, who did take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not been affected by Islamic terrorism?
Last edited:
By the way, people who say things here like, "there was terror before 9/11", "the region was XYZ before iraq (part 1 or 2)."
Please don't post and run, that level of debate occurred and pretty much was used to justify the ill fated actions we are discussing (not to mention long history of interventions). The likes of Ted Heath visiting to attempt to de escalate war are appreciated by me because, advocating for half a million deaths (plenty of which included our own armed forces) which doesn't include the knock on loss of life whatsoever, whilst conflating Al-Qaeda with Saddam from a mind set that some Arabs brought harm in one place, so action to entirely different Arabs in an entirely different place is justified, whilst enough for some is unreasonable behaviour, I'm advocating far wider agreements before jumping into the region militarily and strengthening the UN not taring it down.
Please don't post and run, that level of debate occurred and pretty much was used to justify the ill fated actions we are discussing (not to mention long history of interventions). The likes of Ted Heath visiting to attempt to de escalate war are appreciated by me because, advocating for half a million deaths (plenty of which included our own armed forces) which doesn't include the knock on loss of life whatsoever, whilst conflating Al-Qaeda with Saddam from a mind set that some Arabs brought harm in one place, so action to entirely different Arabs in an entirely different place is justified, whilst enough for some is unreasonable behaviour, I'm advocating far wider agreements before jumping into the region militarily and strengthening the UN not taring it down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
While he offers nothing new, i dont think there is all that much you can offer as far as anti-terrorism goes, without seeming hugely unpopular. I think his statements are a lot easier to swallow than Theresa Mays shameless statements on removing internet privacy to fight terror.
What point are you making?
Conflict in the Philippines is nothing to do with the Wests involvement in the middle east. Corbyn has never made that point.
There has been so much bloodshed over the years over there; Filipino Muslim conflicts with governmental and colonising powers date back almost half a millennia. These are not new fighters or terror groups in the Philippines, it is the same people and an on going conflict.
I disagree.
Lets follow leaders who said - Apartheid I told you so, Unilateral military action - I told you so, Pinochet - I told you so, Palestine - I told you so etc.
He is offering solutions and has been standing against bad policy from all political directions for a pretty long time.
I honestly believe that even if we completely stop all military action and remove all troops from these conflict zones, there are still people who will actively try to attack western countries as they are doing now, except it will be done because of what we have previosuly done to them. I don't mean to suggest that this is a reason to continue military action, but that we simply can't stop these attacks and I don't think that they ever will.
Scorza are you really trying to Argue that if the Man who stood against unilateral military action in the region (that cost half a million to die) doesn't now carry on the same approach that he demostrated against, the terrorists win?
Despite the probable outcome of the half a million deaths being that there is far more global terror to contend with now, than before, just as he and others had predicted.
I'll say it again, blaming those who stood against Iraq for the Situation post Iraq is perverse. Also creating a cycle of war and terror serves only fundamentalists and industrialists!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,565
- Location
- Falling...
Everytime I read an article on this, or see the faces of the victims, I start to get quite emotional. This is why I don't read the news anymore - it's just too upsetting.
Shame we had to use the military - it shows we are worried... however we don't have enough police (thanks government!) to cover and offer the protection/assurance to our people. So it's understandable.
Shame we had to use the military - it shows we are worried... however we don't have enough police (thanks government!) to cover and offer the protection/assurance to our people. So it's understandable.
No, I'm saying that by choosing to highlight it now, he's sending a message which will boost the jihadis. Corbyn has the moral high ground here, no question - however he seems to be doing his best to march towards the mire again.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Why would they care what he thinks, the Western media paints him as a joke and a softy on the east as well as an incredibly unlikely candidate to get elected. Even if they did care what our politicians said, they would hardly care about him specifically.
So I'm confused. Our foreign policy has caused a young man, born in the UK, to kill British people en masse is what people are trying to say?
And this is the same thing for the previous 'home grown' terrorists? Well that just doesn't make a lick of sense!
Ok, let's accept that this is the cause.
Why isn't it that other people, like stewski, who disagree with the UKs foreign policy keep committing these atrocities? Why didn't we see these attacks when we were mucking about with colonialism in Africa? Or even other parts of Asia? Why is it that those who do all seem to belong to one similar demographic?
Yet again the elephant in the room is being ignored.
And this is the same thing for the previous 'home grown' terrorists? Well that just doesn't make a lick of sense!
Ok, let's accept that this is the cause.
Why isn't it that other people, like stewski, who disagree with the UKs foreign policy keep committing these atrocities? Why didn't we see these attacks when we were mucking about with colonialism in Africa? Or even other parts of Asia? Why is it that those who do all seem to belong to one similar demographic?
Yet again the elephant in the room is being ignored.
Two weeks from a general election and so many giving it "now is not the time for this".
Granted Mondays events are still raw but the GE is days away. The Tories don't want any of this stuff brought to the front. Be it policing, intelligence, home office or foreign policy they can only come out looking bad.
Anyone else other than Corbyn would drive this home to full advantage. Given what was happening with Maybot in the hours before Manchester he is now looking at fairly open goal.
Granted Mondays events are still raw but the GE is days away. The Tories don't want any of this stuff brought to the front. Be it policing, intelligence, home office or foreign policy they can only come out looking bad.
Anyone else other than Corbyn would drive this home to full advantage. Given what was happening with Maybot in the hours before Manchester he is now looking at fairly open goal.
Sorry, I thought it was the Labour party who were in power when the decision to invade Iraq was taken and indeed, promoted.
ISIS do not protect their own populations, far from it. They are largely responsible for the death of countless Muslim people in the Middle East. Their aim in the whole world is the caliphate and seem willing to carry on with this aim regardless who they may face on any battlefield.
I also stood against the invasion of Iraq and I am centre right, definitely not a Corbyn supporter, more May. At the very least Bush and Blair do have a lot to answer for and we should have waited on the UN to resolve this and with further inspections.
As a permanent member of the UN security council, we are part of the world police whether we like it or not and we can not unilaterally oppose all interventions. This would eventually lead to a paralysis of the UN and greater conflicts IMO.
I also stood against the invasion of Iraq and I am centre right, definitely not a Corbyn supporter, more May. At the very least Bush and Blair do have a lot to answer for and we should have waited on the UN to resolve this and with further inspections.
As a permanent member of the UN security council, we are part of the world police whether we like it or not and we can not unilaterally oppose all interventions. This would eventually lead to a paralysis of the UN and greater conflicts IMO.
Don't worry you are correct.
I'm certainly not a labour voter but the line of "not now" can't stand. May must be dreading the result now, Manchester will absolutely have an impact on the way people will vote. This discussion is probably for the other thread.