northstandnorth
THE GOLDSTONE
loyalist forces killed more police and soldiers than the IRALord Bracknell said:
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Today's debate - The Iraq war was it worth it ?
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
No,it wasn't worth it.
Oust Saddam,put the UK up as a target,cost British lives and unmeasurable misery all round.Find no WMD (surprise,surprise).
And now we just wait for the next Iraqi dictator to emerge,to be backed ,no doubt,by Uncle Sam.
Oust Saddam,put the UK up as a target,cost British lives and unmeasurable misery all round.Find no WMD (surprise,surprise).
And now we just wait for the next Iraqi dictator to emerge,to be backed ,no doubt,by Uncle Sam.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
I think, by now, it probably is safe enough to write the WMD red herring off as a piece of pure fiction, invented by right-wing sabre-rattlers.¡Cereal Killer! said:
And, if these figures published by the Lancet are to be believed - and, for the scorn being poured on them by some, the methodology used to calculate them is not untested - then a figure of 650,000 "excess deaths" is insanely high by any standards - even if it's half that, it's still hellishly high.
adrian29uk
New member
- Sep 10, 2003
- 3,389
Gwylan said:
Very true. I dont suppose it will make any difference if they went or not.
Albion Dan
Banned
The whole thing has been the most expensive, in terms of cost and life, con in history.
Iraqis were better off under that scum Saddam, and thats a fact, at least they didnt have a civil war that will rumble on forever and the threat of being blown up by cars parked in the street, or governed by regional religious sheik maniacs who condone the murder and rape of women who try and get a job.
Areas of Iraq are now governed as strictly as Afghanistan under the Taliban, how is that an imporvement? And the Allied troops allow it as it keeps a degree of control in the area.
I do however think that we have caused the whole f***ing mess so we are responsible for staying to try and prevent the entire region imploding, although even our presence may not be able to do this.
The most saddening thing is to think of what good this country could have done with the Billions of pounds wasted by Bush and Blair for commercial greed and ego massaging, that has actually gone towards the murder of half a million people in 3 years, which is god knows how many more than Saddam knocked off.
Iraqis were better off under that scum Saddam, and thats a fact, at least they didnt have a civil war that will rumble on forever and the threat of being blown up by cars parked in the street, or governed by regional religious sheik maniacs who condone the murder and rape of women who try and get a job.
Areas of Iraq are now governed as strictly as Afghanistan under the Taliban, how is that an imporvement? And the Allied troops allow it as it keeps a degree of control in the area.
I do however think that we have caused the whole f***ing mess so we are responsible for staying to try and prevent the entire region imploding, although even our presence may not be able to do this.
The most saddening thing is to think of what good this country could have done with the Billions of pounds wasted by Bush and Blair for commercial greed and ego massaging, that has actually gone towards the murder of half a million people in 3 years, which is god knows how many more than Saddam knocked off.
NMH
Banned
Okay, I was living in the USA for Bushes senior and Junior, for Clinton, and for 9/11, and saw that unfold live.
My reactions to them I argued painstakingly with Americans at my local 'forum', which was a cafe in my village in California (LA County)
In brief, Bush snr was a warmonger who USED Saddam to cowe the Kuwaiti Amir - who were not exactly US friendly and pushed to raise oil prices on them.
Saddam was goaded (a fellow warmonger, let it be said) into invading Kuwait, then came the US cavalry to save the day, keep their own tyrant from stretching the puppet strings, and extract the Iraqi military. Real nasty hi-tech equipment demo'd on real meat, and unwitting (and mostly unwilling) Iraqi menfolk got sliced to shreds. Blame Saddam, chase him back to Baghdad a consider it job done.
Democrats won the next and next elections, and the 'Enrons' and 'big oil' wanted Clinton gone, and no chance of another Democrat preventing their mafia-like movements and inhumane control abroad. Clinton was a fairly savvy politician, on a world stage particularly - which few else were, and def. NOT the Republicans.
It took a bit of dodgy dealing, but that had to be done to get Bushy-baby G.W. into power as the same old regime. No way could Bush Sr. get his way without G.W or another member of his family, (and corrupting the election process).
Enter a dictatorship that is much more powerful and worse than a Saddam Hussein. Drunk on their own power and corruption, they have got away with all sorts of stock market crimes, inc. Enron etc - and so they start to point fingers at who they can't manipulate, or who they think they can threaten into submission ; Iran, N.Korea, Cuba (done for them already), Venezuala.
The Venezualan gvt shows a friendly face of sensibility to the outside world - a weapon in itself, and a smart move - that makes republican USA appear somewhat hypocritical.
Iran accept their title, realising America has its' hands full anyway, and gets on with trying to maintain their own balances within a religiously 'focussed' (or 'extreme' as many call it) country. Nuclear power is entertained, which of course sparks fear into the only country who knows firsthand how nuclear power can be a winning hand.
9/11, and another trump card is played from a group of faceless extremists - people who are hard to locate (no particular country), pin down, or fight against. Saddam Hussein, having now got a bit of a gripe against the treachery of the US gvt., is seen to be cheerfully unsympathetic, unsurprisingly. He might even be applauding or encouraging terrorists who strike against his ex-allies!
Let's kick his ass cowboys! Bushy had to do something in response to 9/11, and his dad took all kinds of flak for not going into Baghdad the last time.
Enter catchphrase 1.1; "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YES INDEEDY CITIZENS OF AMERICA".
Christ almighty how many times can you say that phrase in a sentence? Loads. The public listen to anything the t.v. says. Sadly the United Nations exist to slow Bush down, but let's just belittle them....no, let's just brush them aside completely and show that that (World-Democratic) organisation are powerless, worthless. Off trundle the military boys and girls to enforce an heroic "CRUSADE" (yep, he really did say that word) against a created enemy. It'll be swift, no more than a couple of silly air-rifles fired against us.
No need to blockade that little place. Golly gosh, where did all these other people come from? How'd they get it with all these weapons when we already KNEW that Iraq had _NO_ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Just a few towel-heads, riiiight.
Afghanistan, which the US supplied with weaponry, training and support vs Russia - are the place where the terrorists seem to proliferate and profit.
Better keep them busy there. But - that keeps YOU busy too Mr Bush, and terrorists have already spread out, without and within!
Terrorism is beating greedy capitolism, the politic which spread to keep 'them' poor, and 'US' rich...and richer. It costs - big-time - to seek out terrorists, x-ray at airports, guard US concerns abroad, supply armies, watch Korea etc. All the while, China is a burgeoning economy and currency....and so's Europe! The UK are one of very few who still reach out in support of the US.
We are stuck with this situation, it won't go away. The US will have to keep struggling, and with a government that entertained the concept of USA as a third-world country (except for the uber-wealthy), they are having to face the shit, and have their noses rubbed in it. The greed of the few has condemned the many, along with them.
The US has an economy that is bouyed by the debt of its' own people.
Not the product, not the manufacturing, not the exports. the DEBT.
The Future? The Republican strongly believe that they cannot allow anyone to deter them from the tables they have loaded with bets. They are gamblers who are losing, and they are betting the ranch.
Remember the time G.W. flew onto a US Aircraft Carrier, bannered up with 'JOB DONE'?
= cough =
My reactions to them I argued painstakingly with Americans at my local 'forum', which was a cafe in my village in California (LA County)
In brief, Bush snr was a warmonger who USED Saddam to cowe the Kuwaiti Amir - who were not exactly US friendly and pushed to raise oil prices on them.
Saddam was goaded (a fellow warmonger, let it be said) into invading Kuwait, then came the US cavalry to save the day, keep their own tyrant from stretching the puppet strings, and extract the Iraqi military. Real nasty hi-tech equipment demo'd on real meat, and unwitting (and mostly unwilling) Iraqi menfolk got sliced to shreds. Blame Saddam, chase him back to Baghdad a consider it job done.
Democrats won the next and next elections, and the 'Enrons' and 'big oil' wanted Clinton gone, and no chance of another Democrat preventing their mafia-like movements and inhumane control abroad. Clinton was a fairly savvy politician, on a world stage particularly - which few else were, and def. NOT the Republicans.
It took a bit of dodgy dealing, but that had to be done to get Bushy-baby G.W. into power as the same old regime. No way could Bush Sr. get his way without G.W or another member of his family, (and corrupting the election process).
Enter a dictatorship that is much more powerful and worse than a Saddam Hussein. Drunk on their own power and corruption, they have got away with all sorts of stock market crimes, inc. Enron etc - and so they start to point fingers at who they can't manipulate, or who they think they can threaten into submission ; Iran, N.Korea, Cuba (done for them already), Venezuala.
The Venezualan gvt shows a friendly face of sensibility to the outside world - a weapon in itself, and a smart move - that makes republican USA appear somewhat hypocritical.
Iran accept their title, realising America has its' hands full anyway, and gets on with trying to maintain their own balances within a religiously 'focussed' (or 'extreme' as many call it) country. Nuclear power is entertained, which of course sparks fear into the only country who knows firsthand how nuclear power can be a winning hand.
9/11, and another trump card is played from a group of faceless extremists - people who are hard to locate (no particular country), pin down, or fight against. Saddam Hussein, having now got a bit of a gripe against the treachery of the US gvt., is seen to be cheerfully unsympathetic, unsurprisingly. He might even be applauding or encouraging terrorists who strike against his ex-allies!
Let's kick his ass cowboys! Bushy had to do something in response to 9/11, and his dad took all kinds of flak for not going into Baghdad the last time.
Enter catchphrase 1.1; "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YES INDEEDY CITIZENS OF AMERICA".
Christ almighty how many times can you say that phrase in a sentence? Loads. The public listen to anything the t.v. says. Sadly the United Nations exist to slow Bush down, but let's just belittle them....no, let's just brush them aside completely and show that that (World-Democratic) organisation are powerless, worthless. Off trundle the military boys and girls to enforce an heroic "CRUSADE" (yep, he really did say that word) against a created enemy. It'll be swift, no more than a couple of silly air-rifles fired against us.
No need to blockade that little place. Golly gosh, where did all these other people come from? How'd they get it with all these weapons when we already KNEW that Iraq had _NO_ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Just a few towel-heads, riiiight.
Afghanistan, which the US supplied with weaponry, training and support vs Russia - are the place where the terrorists seem to proliferate and profit.
Better keep them busy there. But - that keeps YOU busy too Mr Bush, and terrorists have already spread out, without and within!
Terrorism is beating greedy capitolism, the politic which spread to keep 'them' poor, and 'US' rich...and richer. It costs - big-time - to seek out terrorists, x-ray at airports, guard US concerns abroad, supply armies, watch Korea etc. All the while, China is a burgeoning economy and currency....and so's Europe! The UK are one of very few who still reach out in support of the US.
We are stuck with this situation, it won't go away. The US will have to keep struggling, and with a government that entertained the concept of USA as a third-world country (except for the uber-wealthy), they are having to face the shit, and have their noses rubbed in it. The greed of the few has condemned the many, along with them.
The US has an economy that is bouyed by the debt of its' own people.
Not the product, not the manufacturing, not the exports. the DEBT.
The Future? The Republican strongly believe that they cannot allow anyone to deter them from the tables they have loaded with bets. They are gamblers who are losing, and they are betting the ranch.
Remember the time G.W. flew onto a US Aircraft Carrier, bannered up with 'JOB DONE'?
= cough =
Rangdo
Registered Cider Drinker
If you tell me how much it cost I'll tell you whether it was worth it or not.
NMH
Banned
good one Rangdo.
The costs will be continuing for a long time, so no, no-one can tell you the answer.
Even the final costs in lives and finances will be either unbelievable, or mis-calculated, so that's another "no"
The costs will be continuing for a long time, so no, no-one can tell you the answer.
Even the final costs in lives and finances will be either unbelievable, or mis-calculated, so that's another "no"
Last edited:
Lammy
Registered Abuser
Man of Harveys said:
*cough*Labour*cough*
Any chance anyone could get Gordon Brown to post on this thread? For a man who proclaims that he wants to be the next PM, I'm not sure he even knows there IS a war going on in Iraq...
NMH
Banned
He won't be quick to announce his stance on the Iraq invasion, as things may be yet revealed that might negate his chances of getting in as PM. Maybe at the last moments, he'll tell everyone (what will be the obvious answer anyway) that he backs the war and the troops. He actually cannot have any other stance.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
That's not totally true - Labour, well, Blair in particular, lied, lied and lied again about the reasons why they went to war but for them, it was, I seem to recall, always to do with the threat posed by Saddam's non-existent WMDs, not September 11.Lammy said:
Whereas every single American who supports the war to whom I've ever spoken to about it (including the guardsman who was about to be shipped off to Iraq who was groom at a wedding I attended in Aberystwyth!) sees a clear connection between Sep 11 and Iraq, something which Bush and co were happy to tout around almost before the towers had even collapsed.
Both reason are as dodgy as f***, mind, don't get me wrong. Sending troops to war is one of the most important decisions any politician ever has to take - even Thatcher had sleepless nights about it during the Falklands, apparently. It's very much not to be done lightly or wrongly.
Last edited:
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
Lammy said:
To be fair all parties "supported" the invasion I seem to recall.
Albion Dan
Banned
Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:
Except the Lib Dems!
Lammy
Registered Abuser
Man of Harveys said:
It's not totally untrue either. All the countries involved in the war used the fear generated by 9/11 to some extent. I don't believe Labour would have gained cross party support if 9/11 had not happened.
It is also folly to simply say that the Tories suppoted the war too. THey supported the war on the evidence that the US and Labour governements provided. This of course turned out to be bollocks.
Basically, you can't slag off the US for going into Irag and then be a suporter of Labour.
IMHO
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
Albion Dan said:
Yes well they dont count.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
I could never blame someone for saying "I can't support Labour because of Iraq" - it's a massive issue which they've clearly f***ed up. (Incidentally, I still totally scratch my head and question why one of the best "politicians" of our time has committed political suicide like this - I still find it completely and utterly baffling).Lammy said:
But conversely (and it's a very big "but"), in no way does anyone ever vote for a party based on just one issue either - that's the deal you get in a representative democracy. But in just about every other respect OTHER than Iraq, I think they've done a very good job.
Last edited:
Trufflehound
Re-enfranchised
Wasn't.
Still isn't.
End of.
Still isn't.
End of.
Man of Harveys said:
I was thinking about this today and I reckon it's because Blair's reputation as a good politician is completely false.
He won in 1997 because, let's face it, a Labour party led by Boffo the clown would have beaten Major's Tories. He's then won two elections against a Tory party more interested in fighting among themselves than fighting Labour.
Blair's legacy has been to take us into the most misguided military adventure since Suez. He's run down the NHS to such an extent that last week I was handed a leaflet by the Tory party saying "Stop NHS cuts" - the Tories seem to be more trusted on this issue than Labour.
Perhaps most importantly of all, he promised to get tough on sleaze and has spent his time mixing with a choice a collection of con-men, spivs and sleazeballs as you're likely to find.
A half-decent Tory party would have blown Blair out of the water last time. It was mad of them to back the war for a start. Blair has been very, very lucky but I don't think his legacy will be a good one: Labour's Anthony Eden, I reckon.