ISIL making headline again

[clungemeister]

Was arming Saddam, including with chemical weapons, for the war against Iran a humanitarian act? America used him to fight their war, just like they used the Taliban to fight Russia.

We can also look at the crime committed against Vietnam using Agent Orange to melt the country, so If we are talking about the world being civilised and democratic, we have not been a shining example for the way forward.

ok then ...so it's all our fault...that's that sorted then...happy days.

 

[looney]

We also cannot deny that we have opened up Iraq, Libya and Syria for IS, and basically gave them a new breeding ground. The Middle East was fairly stable compared to what we have today. We could say the problem was already there, but we can also say we made it a hundred times worse.

Oh you can deny it. It was never on the agenda to turn these countries ito Extremist hotpots, you are trying to be wise with hindsight. You are then down to apportioning blame between the Wests omission of extremist elements and the ideologies that created them.

Or a oversight by those wishing to bring democracy against those, say Wahibis, who have specificly been funding and sreading an extremist doctrine for over 50 years. Your "we" is your moral decadence/corruption and misplaced guilt over a twisted view of history. I dont suffer from that.

 

[Soulman]

ok then ...so it's all our fault...that's that sorted then...happy days.

Yep, meanwhile the butchering, beheading and cage burning continues.

 

[cjd]

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...ry01.htm/RK=0/RS=PsDiOObS6QBE7LAHLJ9OBmk7mLw-

I suppose on the positive front, you could always say that at least the Muslim savages are treating the women equally in some incidences.

 

[symyjym]

Oh you can deny it. It was never on the agenda to turn these countries ito Extremist hotpots, you are trying to be wise with hindsight. You are then down to apportioning blame between the Wests omission of extremist elements and the ideologies that created them.

Or a oversight by those wishing to bring democracy against those, say Wahibis, who have specificly been funding and sreading an extremist doctrine for over 50 years. Your "we" is your moral decadence/corruption and misplaced guilt over a twisted view of history. I dont suffer from that.

Twisted view of history Why are you trying to polish a turd?

Nothing to do with hindsight, Robin Cook told Blair of the risk in destabilising the Middle East, creating a power vacuum and raising the hatred of the West. His foresight and fears of the after effects of that war have sadly come true. Did you not listen to Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, saying Iraq was not a threat.

Is it democratic to start a war that 99 % of the world objected to?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Twisted view of history Why are you trying to polish a turd?

Nothing to do with hindsight, Robin Cook told Blair of the risk in destabilising the Middle East, creating a power vacuum and raising the hatred of the West. His foresight and fears of the after effects of that war have sadly come true. Did you not listen to Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, saying Iraq was not a threat.

Is it democratic to start a war that 99 % of the world objected to?

It was completely predictable what would happen with foreign intervention in the removal of Saddam Hussain without a common national cause to fill the inevitable void. Anyone who says 'in hindsight' must have missed the millions walking through London, and the many commentators who knew at the time that with no exit or succession strategy, we were going to create awful mess. So it came to pass, like you say, without any hindsight.

 

[symyjym]

It was completely predictable what would happen with foreign intervention in the removal of Saddam Hussain without a common national cause to fill the inevitable void. Anyone who says 'in hindsight' must have missed the millions walking through London, and the many commentators who knew at the time that with no exit or succession strategy, we were going to create awful mess. So it came to pass, like you say, without any hindsight.

Yep it's naive when someone uses the poor hindsight argument in the Middle East debate. There was clear evidence of how nasty it could get with all the trouble Russia had in Chechnya with all the killing of civilians and beheadings of soldiers.

At least Saddam always gave us our POW's and hostages back.

 

[somerset]

Do you genuinely believe that ISIS would be able to get away with this in Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, Mubarak's Egypt. Or don't you realise that Assad's fight against ISIS would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn't ARM the terrorists with modern weaponry and aid and sanction the **** out of their economy?

I doubt ISIS would even exist, if it wasn't for Western intervention.

I wouldn't accuse you of being simple, just obtuse.

You are actually one of those who probably bleated like hell when the West stood back in didnt intervene on behalf of one subjugated population or another,........................ then bleated even more when they did...... you are a hypocrite...... a simple one at that. You need to foist yourself out of that pit of anti western preconceptions.

I assume you believe inh the right of every individual to have a say in their own present, their own future?..... do you?.... or are you like a vast swathe of the middle east, North Africa and Asia, that say that education is only for some, voting rights are only for some, life is only for some, religion is only for some.............

 

[somerset]

It was completely predictable what would happen with foreign intervention in the removal of Saddam Hussain without a common national cause to fill the inevitable void. Anyone who says 'in hindsight' must have missed the millions walking through London, and the many commentators who knew at the time that with no exit or succession strategy, we were going to create awful mess. So it came to pass, like you say, without any hindsight.

There have been two key mistakes in this whole debacle,..... 1) Bush mentioning the word "crusade",.... and 2) Dismantling the Iraqi military. I say the objective was noble in its main target,..... the execution of said objective was flawed as it turned out. Hindsight.

 

[matbha]

That's cos they were ,should we have treated Hitler Better ?no !!!

 

[glasfryn]

Yep it's naive when someone uses the poor hindsight argument in the Middle East debate. There was clear evidence of how nasty it could get with all the trouble Russia had in Chechnya with all the killing of civilians and beheadings of soldiers.

At least Saddam always gave us our POW's and hostages back.

I can remember back when Russia invaded Afganistan and the rest of the world went mad and refusing to go to the 1980 Olympics and some guy on the morning TV who was something to do with the CIA and his words were then the USA government will be doing handstands about this but not in public because Russia would be at least stemming the rush back to a more strict Islam.
now 30 years or more later everybody is trying their hardest to stem strict Islam

 

[Bold Seagull]

There have been two key mistakes in this whole debacle,..... 1) Bush mentioning the word "crusade",.... and 2) Dismantling the Iraqi military. I say the objective was noble in its main target,..... the execution of said objective was flawed as it turned out. Hindsight.

Are you saying it's only hindsight to have seen that invading Iraq might involve dismantling a large part of their military?

 

[symyjym]

I can remember back when Russia invaded Afganistan and the rest of the world went mad and refusing to go to the 1980 Olympics and some guy on the morning TV who was something to do with the CIA and his words were then the USA government will be doing handstands about this but not in public because Russia would be at least stemming the rush back to a more strict Islam.
now 30 years or more later everybody is trying their hardest to stem strict Islam

The irony of it is that the CIA financed the mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and Bin Laden was part of that.

 

[symyjym]

There have been two key mistakes in this whole debacle,..... 1) Bush mentioning the word "crusade",.... and 2) Dismantling the Iraqi military. I say the objective was noble in its main target,..... the execution of said objective was flawed as it turned out. Hindsight.

Just the two mistakes then

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We also cannot deny that we have opened up Iraq, Libya and Syria for IS, and basically gave them a new breeding ground. The Middle East was fairly stable compared to what we have today. We could say the problem was already there, but we can also say we made it a hundred times worse.

There's no way the Middle East was stable. Anwar Saddat was assassinated by his own soldiers who had become extremists, in 1981.
Lebanon had been embroiled in a civil war from 1975. Syria & Egypt had both had wars with Israel.

 

[symyjym]

There's no way the Middle East was stable. Anwar Saddat was assassinated by his own soldiers who had become extremists, in 1981.
Lebanon had been embroiled in a civil war from 1975. Syria & Egypt had both had wars with Israel.

I said fairly stable, so on the spectrum of what it's like today I would take the position we were in in 2002, before the illegall war. The world hasn't been stable for thousands of years, assassinations are not limited to the Middle East, it has happened throughout our history. Maybe I should have used "stabler" or "much more stable" rather than "fairly stable"

 

[Soulman]

How many more terror attacks until we have a serious discussion about offending religions?.
"On the BBC earlier today there was an interview with a Danish Jewish leader. He mentioned that of course nowadays Jews in Denmark don’t dare to wear anything that marks them out as Jews. The interviewer perfectly rightly put to him that the Jews in Denmark have a problem, don’t they, because the Jewish population is so many times smaller than the Muslim population in Denmark now is after decades of mass immigration. Sure, was the essence of the reply – Muslims outnumber Jews in Denmark many times over and this is a challenge.
Now the pretence of the current European political class continues to be that that’s all just fine. We’re all nice cool Europeans once we live under the same roof. When a Somali arrives in London they become as local as a cockney. And when an Arab Muslim arrives in Copenhagen they become as Danish as Carlsberg.

Except that they don’t, do they?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/dougla...serious-discussion-about-offending-religions/

 

[somerset]

I said fairly stable, so on the spectrum of what it's like today I would take the position we were in in 2002, before the illegall war. The world hasn't been stable for thousands of years, assassinations are not limited to the Middle East, it has happened throughout our history. Maybe I should have used "stabler" or "much more stable" rather than "fairly stable"

It wasn't stable at all, Lebanon was in a constant state if flux, real civil war from the late 60's right up until the 80's and even 90's..... Syria, Egypt, Jordan, plus the Arab League were constantly attacking Israel..... Iran and Iraq fought an all out war that cost the lives of over a million men, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Yemen all had conflicts during the 60's, '70's and '80's........all these continued in one way or another up until today, so unstable would have been an appropriate description.

 

[beorhthelm]

It was completely predictable what would happen with foreign intervention in the removal of Saddam Hussain without a common national cause to fill the inevitable void. ...

this old nonsence is, well nonsence. it wasnt predictable, any more than it was predictable Saddam's forces would melt away. the events of Iraq were largely unforseen - possibilities amongst many and the allies certainly overlooked what to do in the event of a complete collapse. they had assumed that some other group would establish themselves, or misguidedly, there would be an outbreak of understanding and belief in liberal democracy. there was always risk, just as there was a risk Saddam held out and the conflict desended into a long drawn out war (rather than anarchic insurgency). to suggest the train of events were accuratly forseen implies they were considered part of the plan, and that makes no sence if we consider the original anti-war narrative, that it was all for the oil. it didnt serve the US and allies much to have a country in a state of anarchy, so that the oil remain largely unaccessible and even now the production remains well below potential ouput. now if we want to discount oil and say it was for the shear hell of it, unfinished business from Gulf War, one might argue it was part of the plan to leave an unstable state behind.

the whole of the past decade in the middle east has been largely unpredictable. most big events are, otherwise people will act to avoid them.

 

[symyjym]

It wasn't stable at all, Lebanon was in a constant state if flux, real civil war from the late 60's right up until the 80's and even 90's..... Syria, Egypt, Jordan, plus the Arab League were constantly attacking Israel..... Iran and Iraq fought an all out war that cost the lives of over a million men, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, and Yemen all had conflicts during the 60's, '70's and '80's........ so unstable would have been an appropriate description.

I said "fairly stable" not "stable" and am talking at the time just before the illegall war, when Saddam was already on his knees before we went in, not the whole 100 year history of the Middle East. If we are going to go back to the 50's, 60's and 70's we should also include Cuba, Vietnam and out own Nothern Ireland problem. Maybe we should go back to the slaughter of the naitive American Indians. I don't understand why you are trying to paint such a perfect picture of us, and then say that going to war illegally was justified.

And like I said earlier Iraq was fighting Americas war on Iran and supplying Saddam with arms and chemical weapons.