UK rules out military action in Iraq.

[beorhthelm]

I thought that ISIS came out of the Syrian conflict?

and that in a nutshell is the point.

 

[martyn20]

thats an interesting revision. Bush Snr stopped because Powell conselled him to stop as firstly the highway of death looked bad and frankly everyone through it wasnt cricket and secondly their UN mandate was only to liberate Kuwait. they risked losing support of the wider arab world and in particular their sponsors the Saudis if they carried on. They also thought Sadam was sufficiently weakened that the population would turn against him. recall the no fly zones in the north and the south? they where a policy to prevent Saddam using air support to suppress uprisings. but enough of his loyal forces remained to re-suppress and those groups where left to fend for themselves without further backing and lost. badly. this was not the plan, and hence Bush jr took a the chance to engineer a settling of old business. really, if Bush snr had wanted to "do the right thing" there would have been no drive for Bush Jnr to go in again in 2003.

the question im asking is why didnt ISIS or a similar group rise up in Iraq in the past 12 years, why now? if there is a coincidence, the interesting one noted but not widely, was that the Iraq government recently put 60k security forces in the Sunni areas on the dole. at a stoke they removed most of the security in the north of Iraq and left alot of trained, armed men with a greivence. how many joined up with ISIS, who knows? an awfull lot of other things to throw in the mix here than a simplistic narrative that because we invaded in 2003, a group tries to split the country in 2014.

So if Saddam was still there with his 2003 standing army would the same thing have happened in the North of Iraq?

 

[Soulman]

So if Saddam was still there with his 2003 standing army would the same thing have happened in the North of Iraq?

Who knows, it is 12 years since then. I seem to remember the celebrations from the suppressed people of Iraq when he turned his toes up.

 

[martyn20]

Who knows, it is 12 years since then. I seem to remember the celebrations from the suppressed people of Iraq when he turned his toes up.

It's actually very easy to know, I said if Saddam was still there now with his 2003 army would, under those circumstances the changes to security in the North have happened.

 

[martyn20]

Who knows, it is 12 years since then. I seem to remember the celebrations from the suppressed people of Iraq when he turned his toes up.

Many of them did yes, then the allies took their jobs away and left them to fend for themselves, kept on killing them in their thousands and destroying any sense of society they had.

 

[beorhthelm]

So if Saddam was still there with his 2003 standing army would the same thing have happened in the North of Iraq?

since the army melted away twice and the way Libya totally collapsed and Syria went to cival war, i believe it would. we dont know of course, but to say 2003 is soley and directly leading to this event ignores the events elsewhere in the region since 2011. ISIS or a similar militant Islamic group certainly wouldnt have looked favourably upon Saddam and his secular Baath party.

 

[hybrid_x]

this thread is full of thoughts and opinions from various MSM sites, channels, and papers.......and all are missing some key points.
John Perkins was a key "economic hitman" for western powers - and his story is on utube.....and will open minds to the truth of todays geo-political arena.


the CIA, zionists, and oil interests (larger oil fields in southern Iraq) are all behind what goes on in the middle east.

the sunni and shia groups still hold a silly grudge over who their new master was to be in 630AD........idiots......but these people are being used as pawns.

 

[Leighgull]

this thread is full of thoughts and opinions from various MSM sites, channels, and papers.......and all are missing some key points.
John Perkins was a key "economic hitman" for western powers - and his story is on utube.....and will open minds to the truth of todays geo-political arena.


the CIA, zionists, and oil interests (larger oil fields in southern Iraq) are all behind what goes on in the middle east.

the sunni and shia groups still hold a silly grudge over who their new master was to be in 630AD........idiots......but these people are being used as pawns.

Ah. You again.

 

[hybrid_x]

Ah. You again.

 

[Leighgull]

It's actually very easy to know, I said if Saddam was still there now with his 2003 army would, under those circumstances the changes to security in the North have happened.

Probably yes. Probably sooner.

The secular Ba'ath party was massively unpopular in the north. The Islamists are not an Iraqi phenomena but are drawn from the wider Islamic world. It depends on whether or not you are able to step back from the idea that this whole mess is something that started with the western powers intervening and see that this problem started 1200 years ago. Saddam was only a pause in the unrelenting slaughter since Mohammed carked it.

We have to step in again now because Iraq becoming a haven for radical Islamists is even more destabilising for the region.

Tony Blair will be exonerated by history. Attempting to install democracy was the right thing to do to face down radical Islam. It wasn't followed through properly and Iran ensured it failed but it WAS the right thing to do.

Everyone thought that Chamberlain was a hero for attempting to appease Hitler in 1938..the protesters trying to keep Britain out of war with Germany were the majority then too. Churchill was a lone voice telling everyone tat leaving the Nazis to it was a bad idea for western civilisation...it's the same with radical Islam and oppressive dictators like Hussein. Leaving them to it will hurt us far, far more in the long run.

 

[Soulman]

Probably yes. Probably sooner.

The secular Ba'ath party was massively unpopular in the north. The Islamists are not an Iraqi phenomena but are drawn from the wider Islamic world. It depends on whether or not you are able to step back from the idea that this whole mess is something that started with the western powers intervening and see that this problem started 1200 years ago. Saddam was only a pause in the unrelenting slaughter since Mohammed carked it.

We have to step in again now because Iraq becoming a haven for radical Islamists is even more destabilising for the region.

Tony Blair will be exonerated by history. Attempting to install democracy was the right thing to do to face down radical Islam. It wasn't followed through properly and Iran ensured it failed but it WAS the right thing to do.

Everyone thought that Chamberlain was a hero for attempting to appease Hitler in 1938..the protesters trying to keep Britain out of war with Germany were the majority then too. Churchill was a lone voice telling everyone tat leaving the Nazis to it was a bad idea for western civilisation...it's the same with radical Islam and oppressive dictators like Hussein. Leaving them to it will hurt us far, far more in the long run.

Good post

 

[Curious Orange]

Hidden Imam/s there is only one, but how does it fit in to this?

Because Sunnis are fighting Shias.

 

[Leighgull]

I notice during PMQs today that they were talking about impeaching Blair AGAIN for misleading the house into invading Iraq ahead of Chilcott reporting.

Cameron dismissing this because events in Iraq are dictating we need to intervene again...not because Blair was wrong to depose Saddam but because radical ISIL fighters have capitalised on the conflict in Syria to aggregate their forces across the region.

Saddam wouldn't have prevented this upheaval it would have just been embarrassing for the West because we'd have to support him against ISIL.

 

[daveinprague]

We have indirectly armed ISIL in Syria... its really going well.

 

[Leighgull]

We have indirectly armed ISIL in Syria... its really going well.

Have you noticed the subtle shift in the media reports on the Syrian conflict over the past few days? Whereas, previously, we were being told that Assad was evil we are now being told that Al Quaeda is behind the rebels and that Assad is protecting Christians from te Jihadis?

It's apropos of nothing maybe but it is definitely happening. We are certainly suddenly less interested in deposing Assad. Is he the next "bulwark" against Jihad?

We're mates with Iran all of a sudden who share equally with us in the blame for the destabilisation of Iraq since we overthrew Hussein and we have 100 thousand militants armed with M16s courtesy of Obama. Very interesting dynamics here.

Iranian soldiers with US air support next. Very peculiar.

 

[symyjym]

Have you noticed the subtle shift in the media reports on the Syrian conflict over the past few days? Whereas, previously, we were being told that Assad was evil we are now being told that Al Quaeda is behind the rebels and that Assad is protecting Christians from te Jihadis?

It's apropos of nothing maybe but it is definitely happening. We are certainly suddenly less interested in deposing Assad. Is he the next "bulwark" against Jihad?

We're mates with Iran all of a sudden who share equally with us in the blame for the destabilisation of Iraq since we overthrew Hussein and we have 100 thousand militants armed with M16s courtesy of Obama. Very interesting dynamics here.

Iranian soldiers with US air support next. Very peculiar.

If Gadaffi was alive we would have been mates with him as well, he would have done a great job holding onto North Africa