Okay I know I am posting a lot today here but anyway. There was an interesting debate on UK television tonight about Iraq and it got me thinking.
When people talk about Iraq nowadays, (even British people) the overwhelming focus is on America and its foreign policy. Perhaps its because fundamentally almost everyone seems too uncomfortable to even discuss this issue over here anymore. I think its important for people over this side of the pond (and okay I am not a brit but close enough, and even little old Ireland has been involved in a small way) to think long and hard about what has happened over the past 4 years and their own countries pivotal role. I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII, and also the most disasterous policy decision since Lloyd George sent the expeditionary force to Flanders in 1914.
The lies, hypocrisy, and mendacity of the leaders of the Labour party, the party itself and the top layers of British establishment is breathtaking, and the fact that to this day no one in the British government seems capable of admitting the truth and taking personal responsibility for not only the unmitigated human diaster that is Iraq, but also for hijacking Britains parlimentary democracy, placing the foreign policy of Britain in the hands of the Pentagon, and fundamentally destroying the trust people in Britain place in their own institutions is unforgiveable. The real reasons why Britain specifically is fighting in Iraq have never been discussed and I suspect that they never will, at least not till everyone involved is safely retired and are at the memoir writing stage, when we may hear the truth of it.
A labour MP said tonight that it will take Britain generations to recover from the damage that its politicians have done to the country and I agree with him. The fact that the man who was second in line to Tony Blair and fully supported him in this duplicitous policy and is now the Prime Minister refused to even debate the single most important decision Britain has made (i.e. invading Iraq) in 40 years at his own Party conference is laughable and also deeply depressing and damaging to Britains parlimentary democracy. I don't often talk about British politics specifically, but this issue always makes me feel angry as someone who was born in England and has an attachment to that country and its peope.
For shame.
Britain and Iraq
Britain and Iraq
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Britain and Iraq
I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Britain and Iraq
nvalleyvee;699977 wrote: I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
Exactly the point - Hitler invaded Poland with whom we had a treaty that obliged us to come to their aid in case of invasion.
With Iraq, however, we were the aggressors and the sole cause of the war - for all the claims of "clear and present danger" it was obvious to anyone who looked that there was no danger of Iraq opening hostilities against the US or the UK.
The invasion of Iraq is by far the most shameful episode in British politics since the Second War.
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
Exactly the point - Hitler invaded Poland with whom we had a treaty that obliged us to come to their aid in case of invasion.
With Iraq, however, we were the aggressors and the sole cause of the war - for all the claims of "clear and present danger" it was obvious to anyone who looked that there was no danger of Iraq opening hostilities against the US or the UK.
The invasion of Iraq is by far the most shameful episode in British politics since the Second War.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Britain and Iraq
Bryn Mawr;699986 wrote: Exactly the point - Hitler invaded Poland with whom we had a treaty that obliged us to come to their aid in case of invasion.
With Iraq, however, we were the aggressors and the sole cause of the war - for all the claims of "clear and present danger" it was obvious to anyone who looked that there was no danger of Iraq opening hostilities against the US or the UK.
The invasion of Iraq is by far the most shameful episode in British politics since the Second War.
How many Britains died in the WORLD TRADE CENTER attack?? It was an attack on ALL of the trading countries of the world. Too Bad So Sad it occurred in the US.......what if your countrymen had died in your country ........would you feel differently? What if Americans or Chinese, or Arabs, or Belgiums, or Swedes, or Congolese, or Indians had been killed in a terrorist attack on British soil. Would you not ask for help? Would you just wait for it to happen again? Would you wait even longer to see if it happened to your allies?????? This is NOT WWII. The world is not willing to wait and see what happens anymore...............Hitler defined this for us.
With Iraq, however, we were the aggressors and the sole cause of the war - for all the claims of "clear and present danger" it was obvious to anyone who looked that there was no danger of Iraq opening hostilities against the US or the UK.
The invasion of Iraq is by far the most shameful episode in British politics since the Second War.
How many Britains died in the WORLD TRADE CENTER attack?? It was an attack on ALL of the trading countries of the world. Too Bad So Sad it occurred in the US.......what if your countrymen had died in your country ........would you feel differently? What if Americans or Chinese, or Arabs, or Belgiums, or Swedes, or Congolese, or Indians had been killed in a terrorist attack on British soil. Would you not ask for help? Would you just wait for it to happen again? Would you wait even longer to see if it happened to your allies?????? This is NOT WWII. The world is not willing to wait and see what happens anymore...............Hitler defined this for us.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Britain and Iraq
With all due respect nvallyvee, british people have died in britain , victims of terrorist activity over many years.
It is an old news , but the americans actively supported some of these atrocities, namely the IRA funded via public collections , allegedly for freedom fighters.I will pass no comment on the rights or wrongs of that conflict, only to say american policy ran opposite to its special friend's the UK.
The Iraq invasion remains a shameful act for britain
I will go further by saying it is a most shameful episode in USA politics also
It is an old news , but the americans actively supported some of these atrocities, namely the IRA funded via public collections , allegedly for freedom fighters.I will pass no comment on the rights or wrongs of that conflict, only to say american policy ran opposite to its special friend's the UK.
The Iraq invasion remains a shameful act for britain
I will go further by saying it is a most shameful episode in USA politics also
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Britain and Iraq
Bruv;699998 wrote: With all due respect nvallyvee, british people have died in britain , victims of terrorist activity over many years.
It is an old news , but the americans actively supported some of these atrocities, namely the IRA funded via public collections , allegedly for freedom fighters.I will pass no comment on the rights or wrongs of that conflict, only to say american policy ran opposite to its special friend's the UK.
The Iraq invasion remains a shameful act for britain
I will go further by saying it is a most shameful episode in USA politics also
I so disagree. I am not ashamed of anything MY country has done. If it weren't for the US.....Britain would have been alone in WWII. Granted we waited until we got bombed to send troops to WWII but we sent so many arms to Britain during the bombing. This is why we are allies. Can anyone acknowledge allies in this middle east CONFLICT????????
It is an old news , but the americans actively supported some of these atrocities, namely the IRA funded via public collections , allegedly for freedom fighters.I will pass no comment on the rights or wrongs of that conflict, only to say american policy ran opposite to its special friend's the UK.
The Iraq invasion remains a shameful act for britain
I will go further by saying it is a most shameful episode in USA politics also
I so disagree. I am not ashamed of anything MY country has done. If it weren't for the US.....Britain would have been alone in WWII. Granted we waited until we got bombed to send troops to WWII but we sent so many arms to Britain during the bombing. This is why we are allies. Can anyone acknowledge allies in this middle east CONFLICT????????
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Britain and Iraq
Many thanks for WW2.
This is something else.......totally.
If we were truly friends.....friends take advice.
Simple question.....The twin towers got attacked, BinLaden claimed responsiblity.
Why invade Irag ?
This is something else.......totally.
If we were truly friends.....friends take advice.
Simple question.....The twin towers got attacked, BinLaden claimed responsiblity.
Why invade Irag ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Britain and Iraq
nvalleyvee;699992 wrote: The world is not willing to wait and see what happens anymore...............Hitler defined this for us.NV, it is a very difficult thing to say but you have things completely the wrong way about. The truth is utterly unpalatable but it's still the truth. If you insist on being simplistic then here's the simplistic but accurate response: this time round, the United States are the Nazis. That's how bad this is. You're in the wrong country, on the wrong side, cheering the wrong leadership for the wrong reasons.
I'm still thinking, Galbally, I'm not ignoring the opening post. I'm not sure what the answer is to that but I'll sleep on it.
I'm still thinking, Galbally, I'm not ignoring the opening post. I'm not sure what the answer is to that but I'll sleep on it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain and Iraq
nvalleyvee;699977 wrote: I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
I just used the WWII period as a benchmark Nvalley, and I was referring more of the policy of appeasment and the abandoning of Czecheslovakia in 1938 by Neville Chamberlain. I could have said the Suez Crisis or the Partition of India, the Balfour Declaration, and the abandonment of Palestine, but maybe not all of those events are as well known. I honestly didn't want this thread to be about the American Adminsitration's decision to invade Iraq as the point of it is to seperate out the British government's role specifically in supporting and actively engaging and facilitating in the war. There are issues regarding British involvement that are probably not even realized in the United States where the war still has a lot of support if not universal. In Britain this war never had very widespread support and people just accepted it as a fait accompli.
In Britain it has to be remembered even before the war began 1,000,000 British people marched in London against it and the decision of their own leader, and this was long before the military victory turned into the post-conflict diaster. This was ignored.
The British Atorney General, who is the highest government law officer in Britain buried his own conclusion that Britain's entry into the war was illiegal and hid that from Parliamnet and the British Cabinet. This was an act of utter contempt for British constitutional law from the most senior law officer sworn in to uphold it. He did it because he either simply lacked the courage to express his view or he was muzzeled some other way.
The Prime Minister basically and continually mislead the house of commons and the country and covered up the findings of the reports he recieved from his own MI5 intelligence staff that by summer 2002 the decision to go to war had already been made in the White House to engage in the war and the facts were being twisted to suit the agument (i.e. the non-existence of WMDs). Yet Tony Blair consistently claimed that in fact his intelligence was that there were WMDs, its seems now that in fact British intelligence was telling him the opposite. For this, at some stage Tony Blair should be held to account.
Despite the fact the Britain and America were allies in this war; Britain seems to have taken no account or had no oversight of the American post-invasion decisions that went so badly wrong in trying to manage Iraq after Saddam was gone. Essentially the British Government handed a blank political cheque to the US Adminstration (without explaining this to their own people or the hapless Iraqis or anyone else), and abrogated any responsibility to set the political agenda for the post-saddam administration. The British governemnt just accepted whatever the Americans told them was happening. They did not have to accept this state of affairs, and yet they did, which to my mind makes them completely complicit in the debacle that folllows, and its not acceptable for them to claim there was nothing they could do.
The two major decisions that can now to seen to have been competely disasterous were the de-baathification policy, and also allowing the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld to run the process of setting up a civilian government instead of the US State Department. The British Foreign office was at no time considered for a role, that a British governemnt would accept such a disgraceful state of affairs is appauling. Now when questioned about the war Labour policians refer to "mistakes" that were made, and basically try to pass the buck to the US as if Britain has not been aware that these mistakes were being made at the time, and completely implicated in them. They did nothing and still they do nothing about it because they lack the moral courage to do anything about it, or admit the desperate situation they have gotten themselves into. Britain will leave Iraq at some point in the near future and that will be spun as some kind of moral victory for British foreign policy, it is not, it represents abject failure.
Tony Blair sold this war to the British people as a just humane war that was being waged to protect them against Iraq's non-existent WMDs, remove an evil dictator Saddam Hussein and in the process make the world a more secure and stable place. Each claim has proven to be papably false apart from toppling the admitedly evil Saddam. At least blair wasn't brazen enough to try and link 9/11 and Iraq because he new that in Britain he wouldn't get away with that particular turkey. If any coherent argument has been put forth that the world is now more secure than it was in february 2003 I have not heard it.
The war was not a just war, it was not a war of necessity, it was not a noble crusade; it was an illegal war fought under completely false pretenses; no WMDs of any kind have ever been found; no link between 9/11, Al Queda, or Saddam's government has ever been estabilshed, roughly 650,000 civilans are dead since the invasion of 2003; saddam was removed and he was an evil despot; but life for the average Iraqi is now worse than it was under even Saddam (a finding of a major new UN report indicates there is more torture now than under Saddam, mass murders are an everyday occurrence, the economy is a basket case, the infrastrure is still non-existent, and also of course the country is experiencing a defacto civil war, occupation, and also the depredations of Islamic insurgents), thats a terrible indictment after 4 years, thousands of lives, and untold Billions of dollars. That Iraq has now actually become a haven for terrorists and terrorism, precisely the opposite of the intention that was claimed before the war is damning. Iran has become involved in Iraq and the conflict seems set to spread over the region, this conflict may last for another 10 years and involve Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair is directly responsible for all of this and yet he struts around the UN and the Holy Land as a peacemaker based on his role in Northern Ireland. Its true that his record on Northern Ireland has been rightly regarded as good, but in Iraq, his role has been nothing short of criminal.
Hitler attacked you!!!!!! How is that shameful?
I just used the WWII period as a benchmark Nvalley, and I was referring more of the policy of appeasment and the abandoning of Czecheslovakia in 1938 by Neville Chamberlain. I could have said the Suez Crisis or the Partition of India, the Balfour Declaration, and the abandonment of Palestine, but maybe not all of those events are as well known. I honestly didn't want this thread to be about the American Adminsitration's decision to invade Iraq as the point of it is to seperate out the British government's role specifically in supporting and actively engaging and facilitating in the war. There are issues regarding British involvement that are probably not even realized in the United States where the war still has a lot of support if not universal. In Britain this war never had very widespread support and people just accepted it as a fait accompli.
In Britain it has to be remembered even before the war began 1,000,000 British people marched in London against it and the decision of their own leader, and this was long before the military victory turned into the post-conflict diaster. This was ignored.
The British Atorney General, who is the highest government law officer in Britain buried his own conclusion that Britain's entry into the war was illiegal and hid that from Parliamnet and the British Cabinet. This was an act of utter contempt for British constitutional law from the most senior law officer sworn in to uphold it. He did it because he either simply lacked the courage to express his view or he was muzzeled some other way.
The Prime Minister basically and continually mislead the house of commons and the country and covered up the findings of the reports he recieved from his own MI5 intelligence staff that by summer 2002 the decision to go to war had already been made in the White House to engage in the war and the facts were being twisted to suit the agument (i.e. the non-existence of WMDs). Yet Tony Blair consistently claimed that in fact his intelligence was that there were WMDs, its seems now that in fact British intelligence was telling him the opposite. For this, at some stage Tony Blair should be held to account.
Despite the fact the Britain and America were allies in this war; Britain seems to have taken no account or had no oversight of the American post-invasion decisions that went so badly wrong in trying to manage Iraq after Saddam was gone. Essentially the British Government handed a blank political cheque to the US Adminstration (without explaining this to their own people or the hapless Iraqis or anyone else), and abrogated any responsibility to set the political agenda for the post-saddam administration. The British governemnt just accepted whatever the Americans told them was happening. They did not have to accept this state of affairs, and yet they did, which to my mind makes them completely complicit in the debacle that folllows, and its not acceptable for them to claim there was nothing they could do.
The two major decisions that can now to seen to have been competely disasterous were the de-baathification policy, and also allowing the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld to run the process of setting up a civilian government instead of the US State Department. The British Foreign office was at no time considered for a role, that a British governemnt would accept such a disgraceful state of affairs is appauling. Now when questioned about the war Labour policians refer to "mistakes" that were made, and basically try to pass the buck to the US as if Britain has not been aware that these mistakes were being made at the time, and completely implicated in them. They did nothing and still they do nothing about it because they lack the moral courage to do anything about it, or admit the desperate situation they have gotten themselves into. Britain will leave Iraq at some point in the near future and that will be spun as some kind of moral victory for British foreign policy, it is not, it represents abject failure.
Tony Blair sold this war to the British people as a just humane war that was being waged to protect them against Iraq's non-existent WMDs, remove an evil dictator Saddam Hussein and in the process make the world a more secure and stable place. Each claim has proven to be papably false apart from toppling the admitedly evil Saddam. At least blair wasn't brazen enough to try and link 9/11 and Iraq because he new that in Britain he wouldn't get away with that particular turkey. If any coherent argument has been put forth that the world is now more secure than it was in february 2003 I have not heard it.
The war was not a just war, it was not a war of necessity, it was not a noble crusade; it was an illegal war fought under completely false pretenses; no WMDs of any kind have ever been found; no link between 9/11, Al Queda, or Saddam's government has ever been estabilshed, roughly 650,000 civilans are dead since the invasion of 2003; saddam was removed and he was an evil despot; but life for the average Iraqi is now worse than it was under even Saddam (a finding of a major new UN report indicates there is more torture now than under Saddam, mass murders are an everyday occurrence, the economy is a basket case, the infrastrure is still non-existent, and also of course the country is experiencing a defacto civil war, occupation, and also the depredations of Islamic insurgents), thats a terrible indictment after 4 years, thousands of lives, and untold Billions of dollars. That Iraq has now actually become a haven for terrorists and terrorism, precisely the opposite of the intention that was claimed before the war is damning. Iran has become involved in Iraq and the conflict seems set to spread over the region, this conflict may last for another 10 years and involve Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia. Tony Blair is directly responsible for all of this and yet he struts around the UN and the Holy Land as a peacemaker based on his role in Northern Ireland. Its true that his record on Northern Ireland has been rightly regarded as good, but in Iraq, his role has been nothing short of criminal.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Britain and Iraq
Galbally;699974 wrote: Okay I know I am posting a lot today here but anyway. There was an interesting debate on UK television tonight about Iraq and it got me thinking.
When people talk about Iraq nowadays, (even British people) the overwhelming focus is on America and its foreign policy. Perhaps its because fundamentally almost everyone seems too uncomfortable to even discuss this issue over here anymore. I think its important for people over this side of the pond (and okay I am not a brit but close enough, and even little old Ireland has been involved in a small way) to think long and hard about what has happened over the past 4 years and their own countries pivotal role. I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII, and also the most disasterous policy decision since Lloyd George sent the expeditionary force to Flanders in 1914.
The lies, hypocrisy, and mendacity of the leaders of the Labour party, the party itself and the top layers of British establishment is breathtaking, and the fact that to this day no one in the British government seems capable of admitting the truth and taking personal responsibility for not only the unmitigated human diaster that is Iraq, but also for hijacking Britains parlimentary democracy, placing the foreign policy of Britain in the hands of the Pentagon, and fundamentally destroying the trust people in Britain place in their own institutions is unforgiveable. The real reasons why Britain specifically is fighting in Iraq have never been discussed and I suspect that they never will, at least not till everyone involved is safely retired and are at the memoir writing stage, when we may hear the truth of it.
A labour MP said tonight that it will take Britain generations to recover from the damage that its politicians have done to the country and I agree with him. The fact that the man who was second in line to Tony Blair and fully supported him in this duplicitous policy and is now the Prime Minister refused to even debate the single most important decision Britain has made (i.e. invading Iraq) in 40 years at his own Party conference is laughable and also deeply depressing and damaging to Britains parlimentary democracy. I don't often talk about British politics specifically, but this issue always makes me feel angry as someone who was born in England and has an attachment to that country and its peope.
For shame.
Actually it makes a lot of British people very angry as well. Most aren't fooled but we have a perverted electoral system where the govt in power is not actually one supported by even the largest percentage of the population.
TB did not have presidential powers parliament could stop him at any time and should have done. It' not just Tony to blame it's all those pathetic backbenchers with the spine of a jellyfish. Most are also very well aware of GB role in all this as well. Effectively the labour party is finished as a political party. Membership is half what it was in 1997 and falling all the time. I used to think Maggie was the most damaging prime minister in recent times but I think TB has her beaten hands down.It's a toss up who's done the most damage to our political system both destroyed their respective parties as a viable force in British politics.
remember this guy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm
It seems the best politicians in the labour party die just before they can make a difference.
They're now talking about having parades to welcome our troops back. most people are very proud of the armed forces but that suggestion I suspect will be seen by many as a cynical attempt to pretend there is actually support for the war and manipulate public opinion. Especially in Scotland-if they were that proud of the troops why show so little respect for them and disband their regiments?
When people talk about Iraq nowadays, (even British people) the overwhelming focus is on America and its foreign policy. Perhaps its because fundamentally almost everyone seems too uncomfortable to even discuss this issue over here anymore. I think its important for people over this side of the pond (and okay I am not a brit but close enough, and even little old Ireland has been involved in a small way) to think long and hard about what has happened over the past 4 years and their own countries pivotal role. I think from the British perspective that the only conclusion about Iraq is that it is quite definetly the most shameful episode in British politics since WWII, and also the most disasterous policy decision since Lloyd George sent the expeditionary force to Flanders in 1914.
The lies, hypocrisy, and mendacity of the leaders of the Labour party, the party itself and the top layers of British establishment is breathtaking, and the fact that to this day no one in the British government seems capable of admitting the truth and taking personal responsibility for not only the unmitigated human diaster that is Iraq, but also for hijacking Britains parlimentary democracy, placing the foreign policy of Britain in the hands of the Pentagon, and fundamentally destroying the trust people in Britain place in their own institutions is unforgiveable. The real reasons why Britain specifically is fighting in Iraq have never been discussed and I suspect that they never will, at least not till everyone involved is safely retired and are at the memoir writing stage, when we may hear the truth of it.
A labour MP said tonight that it will take Britain generations to recover from the damage that its politicians have done to the country and I agree with him. The fact that the man who was second in line to Tony Blair and fully supported him in this duplicitous policy and is now the Prime Minister refused to even debate the single most important decision Britain has made (i.e. invading Iraq) in 40 years at his own Party conference is laughable and also deeply depressing and damaging to Britains parlimentary democracy. I don't often talk about British politics specifically, but this issue always makes me feel angry as someone who was born in England and has an attachment to that country and its peope.
For shame.
Actually it makes a lot of British people very angry as well. Most aren't fooled but we have a perverted electoral system where the govt in power is not actually one supported by even the largest percentage of the population.
TB did not have presidential powers parliament could stop him at any time and should have done. It' not just Tony to blame it's all those pathetic backbenchers with the spine of a jellyfish. Most are also very well aware of GB role in all this as well. Effectively the labour party is finished as a political party. Membership is half what it was in 1997 and falling all the time. I used to think Maggie was the most damaging prime minister in recent times but I think TB has her beaten hands down.It's a toss up who's done the most damage to our political system both destroyed their respective parties as a viable force in British politics.
remember this guy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm
It seems the best politicians in the labour party die just before they can make a difference.
They're now talking about having parades to welcome our troops back. most people are very proud of the armed forces but that suggestion I suspect will be seen by many as a cynical attempt to pretend there is actually support for the war and manipulate public opinion. Especially in Scotland-if they were that proud of the troops why show so little respect for them and disband their regiments?
Britain and Iraq
ok my thought be them right or wrong
saddam was killing his own people
he had large amounts of antrax(witch we cant find)if you bury weapons in the desert they are very hard to find
should we have just sat back and watched him kill men woman and children
he sprayed a village with chemicals to see the effects when it did not kill them all the ones who lived got the best medical care iraq could spare a bullet to the back of the head
2000 metal coffins were found stacked in a warehouse
should we have sat back and done nothing ......i think not
jess
saddam was killing his own people
he had large amounts of antrax(witch we cant find)if you bury weapons in the desert they are very hard to find
should we have just sat back and watched him kill men woman and children
he sprayed a village with chemicals to see the effects when it did not kill them all the ones who lived got the best medical care iraq could spare a bullet to the back of the head
2000 metal coffins were found stacked in a warehouse
should we have sat back and done nothing ......i think not
jess
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Britain and Iraq
nvalleyvee;699992 wrote: How many Britains died in the WORLD TRADE CENTER attack?? It was an attack on ALL of the trading countries of the world. Too Bad So Sad it occurred in the US.......what if your countrymen had died in your country ........would you feel differently? What if Americans or Chinese, or Arabs, or Belgiums, or Swedes, or Congolese, or Indians had been killed in a terrorist attack on British soil. Would you not ask for help? Would you just wait for it to happen again? Would you wait even longer to see if it happened to your allies?????? This is NOT WWII. The world is not willing to wait and see what happens anymore...............Hitler defined this for us.
And what has the attack on the World Trade Centre have to do with Iraq?
You might as well have invaded Indonesia - at least there was an Al Quaeda cell there.
And what has the attack on the World Trade Centre have to do with Iraq?
You might as well have invaded Indonesia - at least there was an Al Quaeda cell there.
Britain and Iraq
el guapo;700075 wrote: ok my thought be them right or wrong
saddam was killing his own people
he had large amounts of antrax(witch we cant find)if you bury weapons in the desert they are very hard to find
should we have just sat back and watched him kill men woman and children
he sprayed a village with chemicals to see the effects when it did not kill them all the ones who lived got the best medical care iraq could spare a bullet to the back of the head
2000 metal coffins were found stacked in a warehouse
should we have sat back and done nothing ......i think not
jess
Firstly, no evidence of stockpiles of Anthrax were ever found - it was just another one of Tony Blair's lies.
Secondly, on that logic why did we not invade Rowanda and China? Why are we not invading Darfur, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe now? We are not, and cannot be, the World's Police force.
Sorry, but this was not about the poor Kurds being massacred (the US were busily supplying arms to Turkey specifically so that they could massacre the Kurds there) it was a continuation of US / UK intervention in the region going back decades.
ETA - If stockpiling coffins is an indictable offense then we are even more guilty. In the UK the government stockpile includes a body bag for every man, woman and child in the country.
saddam was killing his own people
he had large amounts of antrax(witch we cant find)if you bury weapons in the desert they are very hard to find
should we have just sat back and watched him kill men woman and children
he sprayed a village with chemicals to see the effects when it did not kill them all the ones who lived got the best medical care iraq could spare a bullet to the back of the head
2000 metal coffins were found stacked in a warehouse
should we have sat back and done nothing ......i think not
jess
Firstly, no evidence of stockpiles of Anthrax were ever found - it was just another one of Tony Blair's lies.
Secondly, on that logic why did we not invade Rowanda and China? Why are we not invading Darfur, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe now? We are not, and cannot be, the World's Police force.
Sorry, but this was not about the poor Kurds being massacred (the US were busily supplying arms to Turkey specifically so that they could massacre the Kurds there) it was a continuation of US / UK intervention in the region going back decades.
ETA - If stockpiling coffins is an indictable offense then we are even more guilty. In the UK the government stockpile includes a body bag for every man, woman and child in the country.
Britain and Iraq
Bryn Mawr;700084 wrote: Firstly, no evidence of stockpiles of Anthrax were ever found - it was just another one of Tony Blair's lies.
Secondly, on that logic why did we not invade Rowanda and China? Why are we not invading Darfur, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe now? We are not, and cannot be, the World's Police force.
Sorry, but this was not about the poor Kurds being massacred (the US were busily supplying arms to Turkey specifically so that they could massacre the Kurds there) it was a continuation of US / UK intervention in the region going back decades.
ETA - If stockpiling coffins is an indictable offense then we are even more guilty. In the UK the government stockpile includes a body bag for every man, woman and child in the country.
i may not of made it clear the coffins each had a body of men women and childreneach with a bullet wound to the back of there head
Secondly, on that logic why did we not invade Rowanda and China? Why are we not invading Darfur, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe now? We are not, and cannot be, the World's Police force.
Sorry, but this was not about the poor Kurds being massacred (the US were busily supplying arms to Turkey specifically so that they could massacre the Kurds there) it was a continuation of US / UK intervention in the region going back decades.
ETA - If stockpiling coffins is an indictable offense then we are even more guilty. In the UK the government stockpile includes a body bag for every man, woman and child in the country.
i may not of made it clear the coffins each had a body of men women and childreneach with a bullet wound to the back of there head
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Britain and Iraq
el guapo;700124 wrote: i may not of made it clear the coffins each had a body of men women and children each with a bullet wound to the back of there head
Ah, that's a slightly different matter then.
Ah, that's a slightly different matter then.
Britain and Iraq
Bryn Mawr;700127 wrote: Ah, that's a slightly different matter then.
just dont think we should or could stand by and watch it happen
just dont think we should or could stand by and watch it happen
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Britain and Iraq
el guapo;700131 wrote: just dont think we should or could stand by and watch it happen
Has anyone suggested a source for the bodies?
Has anyone suggested a source for the bodies?
Britain and Iraq
Bryn Mawr;700136 wrote: Has anyone suggested a source for the bodies?
all showed evidence of chemical poisoning one who surived were shot
all showed evidence of chemical poisoning one who surived were shot
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Britain and Iraq
el guapo;700160 wrote: all showed evidence of chemical poisoning one who surived were shot
Depending on where they were found they could well be Iranian soldiers left over from the first Gulf war.
Depending on where they were found they could well be Iranian soldiers left over from the first Gulf war.
Britain and Iraq
some of the info and pics are quite disturbing ......
do not click on link if easily upset or shocked
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
link shows locations of mass graves pic of bodies
pictures and iraqs peoples storys
do not click on link if easily upset or shocked
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
link shows locations of mass graves pic of bodies
pictures and iraqs peoples storys
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."