UK rules out military action in Iraq.

[Dandyman]

total myth. makarios's strength regarding the non aligned movement is vastly over rated on this issue. kissinger if anything tacitly supported attila 2 despite callaghans best efforts. of course there were NATO issues at play but if Greek nationalists hadnt started shooting British servicemens wives in Ledra Street there would be no invasion or partition, that would have happened in 64 ten years earlier if the US hadnt slapped turkey down. let alone the greeks going mental in tyrlliria which caused the first invasion threat (arguably legal) in the first place.


The global geopolitical conspiracy when it comes to Cyprus is a propaganda issue on both the enosis and taksim sides that has little bearing on fact designed to deflect blame from the terrible behaviour on both sides. The greeks (or at least sampson and his cronies) messed up phenomenally. the turks took appalling and unforgiveable and excessive revenge. not the US or the Briitsh fault.

It's certainly true that both Greece and Turkey funded far-right terror gangs in Cyprus. The Greek regime, however, was massively dependent on US support. The Greek dictator Dimitrios Ioannides was determined to mount a coup in Cyprus and bring the island under the control of Athens. Greece, under the military dictatorship had been expelled from the Council of Europe, barred from entry into the EEC but was actively supported by Nixon and Kissinger in exchange for acting a "home" port for the US Sixth fleet and providing bases for the USAAF and US spy operations. In May 1974 Kissinger received a memorandum from the head of his state department Cyprus desk, Thomas Boyatt, warning of an attack and the likely Turkish reaction. Nixon detested the Non-aligned movement and was overjoyed at the possibility of removing Makarios.

On 03 July 1974, President Makarios made public an open letter to the Greek junta, which made the direct accusation of foreign interference and subversion. The coup followed on 15 July 1974 and was replied to by the Turkish invasion. All predicted and all welcomed by Kissinger.

 

[The Spanish]

It's certainly true that both Greece and Turkey funded far-right terror gangs in Cyprus. The Greek regime, however, was massively dependent on US support. The Greek dictator Dimitrios Ioannides was determined to mount a coup in Cyprus and bring the island under the control of Athens. Greece, under the military dictatorship had been expelled from the Council of Europe, barred from entry into the EEC but was actively supported by Nixon and Kissinger in exchange for acting a "home" port for the US Sixth fleet and providing bases for the USAAF and US spy operations. In May 1974 Kissinger received a memorandum from the head of his state department Cyprus desk, Thomas Boyatt, warning of an attack and the likely Turkish reaction. Nixon detested the Non-aligned movement and was overjoyed at the possibility of removing Makarios.

On 03 July 1974, President Makarios made public an open letter to the Greek junta, which made the direct accusation of foreign interference and subversion. The coup followed on 15 July 1974 and was replied to by the Turkish invasion. All predicted and all welcomed by Kissinger.[/QUOTE

you can ride two horses dm.

new book out right now, been accused in certain GC circles as revisionist history but certainly worth a read.

in my own personal opinion makarios and denktash were charismatic politicians that created a perfect storm that bought havoc on innocent people, something we should bear in mind in the current situation a few miles east.

interesting read, and i am not a conspiricy theorist, just a keen student of the avoidable tragedy that befell cyprus.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/06/08/the-heavy-price-of-a-double-lie/

 

[Dandyman]

It's certainly true that both Greece and Turkey funded far-right terror gangs in Cyprus. The Greek regime, however, was massively dependent on US support. The Greek dictator Dimitrios Ioannides was determined to mount a coup in Cyprus and bring the island under the control of Athens. Greece, under the military dictatorship had been expelled from the Council of Europe, barred from entry into the EEC but was actively supported by Nixon and Kissinger in exchange for acting a "home" port for the US Sixth fleet and providing bases for the USAAF and US spy operations. In May 1974 Kissinger received a memorandum from the head of his state department Cyprus desk, Thomas Boyatt, warning of an attack and the likely Turkish reaction. Nixon detested the Non-aligned movement and was overjoyed at the possibility of removing Makarios.

On 03 July 1974, President Makarios made public an open letter to the Greek junta, which made the direct accusation of foreign interference and subversion. The coup followed on 15 July 1974 and was replied to by the Turkish invasion. All predicted and all welcomed by Kissinger.[/QUOTE

you can ride two horses dm.

new book out right now, been accused in certain GC circles as revisionist history but certainly worth a read.

in my own personal opinion makarios and denktash were charismatic politicians that created a perfect storm that bought havoc on innocent people, something we should bear in mind in the current situation a few miles east.

interesting read, and i am not a conspiricy theorist, just a keen student of the avoidable tragedy that befell cyprus.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/06/08/the-heavy-price-of-a-double-lie/

Cheers for the link. I'll have a further read.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I have to say, whilst I'm no fan of Blair, that he's right to point out that Iraq would be consumed by a worse crisis now had Saddam been left in place. It is totally illogical that Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria would have been involved in regime change and Iraq, easily the mot brutal regime in the region under Saddam, would have not descended into the same mire but not with fighters being deployed by proxy, but with national armies.

It's ridiculous to make out that the mid east would have been at peace had we not ousted Saddam.

 

[martyn20]

I have to say, whilst I'm no fan of Blair, that he's right to point out that Iraq would be consumed by a worse crisis now had Saddam been left in place. It is totally illogical that Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria would have been involved in regime change and Iraq, easily the mot brutal regime in the region under Saddam, would have not descended into the same mire but not with fighters being deployed by proxy, but with national armies.

It's ridiculous to make out that the mid east would have been at peace had we not ousted Saddam.

I do not think anyone here has said the Middle East would have been at peace if he had not been ousted but it should have been down to the people of Iraq to change leaders, there was NO reason for the US and UK to do it for them. Not only should they have not done it they should not have done it so badly.
The advantage that ISIS have right now (in Iraq) is directly down to the invasion of 2003, no Iraqi Leadership, no competent Iraqi military and no Iraqi society anymore. We gutted their country with no plans to rebuild it, Bush 1 was right to stop when he did in 1991, he knew this exact thing would happen if you removed the Iraqi government. Sad Bush 2 did not have a chat with his Dad!

 

[beorhthelm]

I do not think anyone here has said the Middle East would have been at peace if he had not been ousted...

im afraid alot of people do seem to be infering this, or at least Iraq would be some sort of beacon of stability, strength and at peace had he remained. while a lack of Saddam and serious army has provided ISIS an advantage, the point missed is there is nothing to say they wouldnt have imploded two or three years ago much like Syria or others. seeing as the famed republican guard faded away at the first sight of the americans and they bearly had to fight (remember that, how the US practically walked up to the government buildings unopposed), i dont think they have hung around very long in a widspread popular uprising. so the advantge may well still be have been there.

 

[Kevlar]

I have to say, whilst I'm no fan of Blair, that he's right to point out that Iraq would be consumed by a worse crisis now had Saddam been left in place. It is totally illogical that Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria would have been involved in regime change and Iraq, easily the mot brutal regime in the region under Saddam, would have not descended into the same mire but not with fighters being deployed by proxy, but with national armies.

It's ridiculous to make out that the mid east would have been at peace had we not ousted Saddam.

well actually it was the expressed desire of USA UK that the invasion would influence
the surrounding area
do you not remember creating a beacon of democracy in the Middle East?
and when the Arab spring began supporters of the invasion
we're quick to claim ousting Saddam was a catalyst for those events
religion complicates and inflames these struggles but at heart we
are seeing a power grab and without western intervention in Iraq and Libya
these relatively small armed groups would just be terrorists
with little traction amongst the people and unable to take over large cities

 

[Stoo82]

.....and of course it was the Ottoman Empire that continuously waged war in a concerted effort to expand its borders in every direction.....

During the middle ages, yes.

 

[somerset]

During the middle ages, yes.

No, incorrect, up to the 1st World War when they were allies with the Germans and in fact wasn't disbanded until sometime in the 20's when modern day Turkey was established.

 

[symyjym]

I have to say, whilst I'm no fan of Blair, that he's right to point out that Iraq would be consumed by a worse crisis now had Saddam been left in place. It is totally illogical that Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria would have been involved in regime change and Iraq, easily the mot brutal regime in the region under Saddam, would have not descended into the same mire but not with fighters being deployed by proxy, but with national armies.

It's ridiculous to make out that the mid east would have been at peace had we not ousted Saddam.

im afraid alot of people do seem to be infering this, or at least Iraq would be some sort of beacon of stability, strength and at peace had he remained. while a lack of Saddam and serious army has provided ISIS an advantage, the point missed is there is nothing to say they wouldnt have imploded two or three years ago much like Syria or others. seeing as the famed republican guard faded away at the first sight of the americans and they bearly had to fight (remember that, how the US practically walked up to the government buildings unopposed), i dont think they have hung around very long in a widspread popular uprising. so the advantge may well still be have been there.

Rubbish, you have both been sucked into the Bush's axis of evil speach. It's funny how we are now on the same side as Iran.

We opened the door for ISIS in Iraq and encouraged them to go to Syria.

Do you both not remember the Iraq Iran eight year war where the US armed Saddam with weapons and wmd.

What about Blair selling arms to Gaddafi, if he was that evil why do that? Unless it was just about profit.

I think you will find that the Middle East had been stable for years before 2003 because of the balance of power and everything was contained. Up until that time the UN had free and safe access to Iraq, now they wouldn't dare step one foot in the place.

Some people forget that the options were not just a choice of invade or not invade, and that the third option was to let the UN continue to do its job.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

well actually it was the expressed desire of USA UK that the invasion would influence
the surrounding area
do you not remember creating a beacon of democracy in the Middle East?
and when the Arab spring began supporters of the invasion
we're quick to claim ousting Saddam was a catalyst for those events
religion complicates and inflames these struggles but at heart we
are seeing a power grab and without western intervention in Iraq and Libya
these relatively small armed groups would just be terrorists
with little traction amongst the people and unable to take over large cities

Fair enough. I'm not entirely convinced that's correct but it's out of my area of expertise. I don't want to come across like Dave in stagland and make myself look like a total end by voicing an opinion which I clearly have no evidence to support.

 

[martyn20]

im afraid alot of people do seem to be infering this, or at least Iraq would be some sort of beacon of stability, strength and at peace had he remained. while a lack of Saddam and serious army has provided ISIS an advantage, the point missed is there is nothing to say they wouldnt have imploded two or three years ago much like Syria or others. seeing as the famed republican guard faded away at the first sight of the americans and they bearly had to fight (remember that, how the US practically walked up to the government buildings unopposed), i dont think they have hung around very long in a widspread popular uprising. so the advantge may well still be have been there.

There is a fact that Iraq was not in much danger of collapse when Saddam was around, he did sort of keep of the place together since 1979, he did it for a decade after 1991 but the country only fell into civil war after 2003. Why might that be?
But as you say it might have happened even if Saddam was still around.........I doubt it but it might have happened!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

There is a fact that Iraq was not in much danger of collapse when Saddam was around

not so much a fact as a perception. yes he had kept the place together (yeah for repression!) for all those years. so had Gaddafi, or Assad until 2011. things changed, and the old certainties where questioned. both sides of this issue are about "what ifs", i just think the assumption that nothing bad (business as usual repression aside) would have occurred in the past 3 years is misguided. we (the west) certainly didn't create ISIS, they are a product of Islam's own internal factions and history. we hadn't heard of ISIS until last week, and as far as i can tell they are a re-branding of an older militant organisation that predates the Iraq war, that utilised that conflict to create a cause with which to occupy themselves. now they want to build a Sunni nation across the deserts of Syria/Iraq.

 

[Stoo82]

No, incorrect, up to the 1st World War when they were allies with the Germans and in fact wasn't disbanded until sometime in the 20's when modern day Turkey was established.

Well yes. But you said the Ottoman Empire was expanding. Which is was not. It lost half of Greece to Independence in 1821, Libya to the Italians in 1911, the Balkans in 1912. My point was that is was a shit empire that was forever falling apart and was not

continuously wag[ing] war in a concerted effort to expand its borders in every direction.

But we digress.

 

[martyn20]

not so much a fact as a perception. yes he had kept the place together (yeah for repression!) for all those years. so had Gaddafi, or Assad until 2011. things changed, and the old certainties where questioned. both sides of this issue are about "what ifs", i just think the assumption that nothing bad (business as usual repression aside) would have occurred in the past 3 years is misguided. we (the west) certainly didn't create ISIS, they are a product of Islam's own internal factions and history. we hadn't heard of ISIS until last week, and as far as i can tell they are a re-branding of an older militant organisation that predates the Iraq war, that utilised that conflict to create a cause with which to occupy themselves. now they want to build a Sunni nation across the deserts of Syria/Iraq.

But did Bush 1 not see the danger and do the right thing by not trying to depose Saddam, he knew what it would lead to. He stopped and Iraq stayed together, in 2003 Bush 2 did the opposite, he deposed Saddam and the country has broken up into factions and a civil war. Why did ISIS or a similar group not invade and conquer Iraq after the first Gulf War.
Are you saying it's coincidence that ISIS have invaded Iraq at a point it is in so much mess after what the West did to it?

 

[symyjym]

not so much a fact as a perception. yes he had kept the place together (yeah for repression!) for all those years. so had Gaddafi, or Assad until 2011. things changed, and the old certainties where questioned. both sides of this issue are about "what ifs", i just think the assumption that nothing bad (business as usual repression aside) would have occurred in the past 3 years is misguided. we (the west) certainly didn't create ISIS, they are a product of Islam's own internal factions and history. we hadn't heard of ISIS until last week, and as far as i can tell they are a re-branding of an older militant organisation that predates the Iraq war, that utilised that conflict to create a cause with which to occupy themselves. now they want to build a Sunni nation across the deserts of Syria/Iraq.

Your reasoning is flawed, but I already explained this to you #192

 

[Curious Orange]

Has anyone mentioned Hidden Imams yet?

 

[symyjym]

Has anyone mentioned Hidden Imams yet?

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

 

[beorhthelm]

But did Bush 1 not see the danger and do the right thing by not trying to depose Saddam, he knew what it would lead to. He stopped and Iraq stayed together, in 2003 Bush 2 did the opposite, he deposed Saddam and the country has broken up into factions and a civil war. Why did ISIS or a similar group not invade and conquer Iraq after the first Gulf War.
Are you saying it's coincidence that ISIS have invaded Iraq at a point it is in so much mess after what the West did to it?

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.

 

[Leighgull]

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.

I thought that ISIS came out of the Syrian conflict?