Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bottling Moonbeams
Topic Started: Nov 23 2015, 05:39 PM (764 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
“Why do have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world, instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces, did what the people of Costa Rica have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army, and that their country is near the top of the global peace index. Surely that is the way we should be going forward.”


Guess whose words these are? Has he not yet recognised that outside of his Dream World Bubble it is a very dangerous place. I am sure that the ISIL Monsters will respond to his words and lay down their arms and allow the Courts to deal with their self confessed misdemeanours.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
I must admit to having a bit of a change of heart over this issue in the last few days.

My earlier point was that Aircraft Carriers don't stop groups like ISIL (and their 'native' supporters.. let us not forget that many of the Paris murderers where French and/or Belgian).

However, it was pointed out to me that even if the Security Services could foil EVERY terrorist attack on the UK, then British citizens would still be vulnerable; our overseas embassy staff and people on foreign holidays for example. Also any Brits travelling on an aircraft. (Sharm el Sheik springs to mind).

Cameron proposed a rapid-reaction force (two Brigades), to supplement the existing Marines and Commando's. It wouldn't be enought to actually invade Syria, but it WOULD allow us to "pounce", with our own air cover, and neutralise a town, or an ISIS group.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Nov 26 2015, 10:04 AM
gansao
Nov 25 2015, 06:41 PM
RJD
Nov 25 2015, 06:09 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


You miss the point. Corbyn did not say that the world was a safe place.On the contrary he claimed it was a dangerous place. He also questioned why we should make it more dangerous and mooted on the principle to reduce military resources.
He did not assert that we should disband the military.
Please dont tell us that the West is' policing' the world.That would make you far more deluded than you claim Corbyn to be.
It is a presumption that giving up on self defence will make adversaries do likewise. I do not buy that guff. I believe that the carrot should always be accompanied with a stick when negotiating with those we believe intend to do us harm and the absence of such a stick increases our danger. Therefore I believe it vital that Politicians take the defence of this realm seriously and not take us on such a fool hardy adventure. I am no pacifist, I believe I am a realist who bases his opinion on history and not day dreams.



Well I dont buy your guff. Look at the words you posted and at least try to understand THEM without adding your own special anti Corbyn rhetoric.
The first sentence questions whether we need to project military force anywhere in the world and the second sentence muses on how wonderful it would be if politicians decided to abolish the military. Everything else is between your ears. Nowhere..nowhere did he demand that we disband the military.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.

It is ridiculous to imply that it is ridiculous to' imply' that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
Firstly because I didnt imply it..I asserted it and secondly it is bloody obvious unless your are blind,illiterate and obtuse. The West has had a history of adventurism and wars in the middle East since before the start of the 20 th century. To deny this is risible and dishonest.
The rest is simply strawman tripe.
As an aside I will state again what I have stated several times in the forlorn hope that it may just possibly get into your head.
If the area where YOU lived was as dismantled and broken by an outside source as much as the areas where ISIS operate. YOU would either be dead or a slave to a local warlord. Any female relatives of yours would possibly be raped and/or killed or perhaps a slave themselves.
Brits who have had no more exposure to danger than a dirty look in a car park and pontificate that Muslims are experiencing violence because they are innately violent are simply showing rank ignorance and are part of the PROBLEM.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
According to Amnesty International and other sources Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis (his own people) thousands more imprisoned prior to the invasion in 2003...... and near as many Iranian deaths.
It is perverse to claim that the West is to blame for muslim deaths and the reason for the hatred we witness.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gansao didn't state that 'the west' was responsible for the deaths, merely a party to them.

The "surplus mortality" of the Iraq war is around a million. (e.g. the deaths that happened, that would not have happened had the war not occured). The West isn't directly responsible for that, but it WAS the catalyst.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RoofGardener
Nov 26 2015, 09:00 PM
Gansao didn't state that 'the west' was responsible for the deaths, merely a party to them.

The "surplus mortality" of the Iraq war is around a million. (e.g. the deaths that happened, that would not have happened had the war not occured). The West isn't directly responsible for that, but it WAS the catalyst.


Thank you.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 26 2015, 04:20 PM
C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.
Whilst I am not suggesting that this in any way justifies the acts of islamic state isn't the current figure for civilian iraqi deaths during the invasion at something like 100,000 +.

Found this:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
:nono:

Even your own link refutes that

"Iraqi casualties reached 7,424 by the time of President G.W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech of 1st May 2003"

And that includes combatants
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 26 2015, 09:00 PM
Gansao didn't state that 'the west' was responsible for the deaths, merely a party to them.

The "surplus mortality" of the Iraq war is around a million. (e.g. the deaths that happened, that would not have happened had the war not occured). The West isn't directly responsible for that, but it WAS the catalyst.

Did the mention of perhaps as many as a million Iranian deaths arising from Hussein's war on Iran also register with you ....... a total of two million Muslim deaths.
Neither am I trying to minimise the deaths from Western invasion ...... my only point is that Muslim on Muslim deaths far exceed any caused by allied incursions ..... a situation being repeated again, in Syria, as it was in Afghanistan and as told in Iraq.
Middle East Muslims may have good reasons to hate the West ...... but removing Saddam Hussein isn't a one of them imo ........ a good many Iraqis welcomed that.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 26 2015, 09:00 PM
Gansao didn't state that 'the west' was responsible for the deaths, merely a party to them.

The "surplus mortality" of the Iraq war is around a million. (e.g. the deaths that happened, that would not have happened had the war not occured). The West isn't directly responsible for that, but it WAS the catalyst.
even that discredited report that got featured in the Lancet only claimed 650,000. IIRC it effectively assumed that pre war Iraq had the highest average life expectancy in the known world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 26 2015, 10:21 PM
ACH1967
Nov 26 2015, 04:20 PM
C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Whilst I am not suggesting that this in any way justifies the acts of islamic state isn't the current figure for civilian iraqi deaths during the invasion at something like 100,000 +.

Found this:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
:nono:

Even your own link refutes that

"Iraqi casualties reached 7,424 by the time of President G.W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech of 1st May 2003"

And that includes combatants
Yes I noticed that but I had an opinion and then founds facts that indicated it was wrong. I posted them because it seemed the right thing to do.

On a different tack. There is clearly something wrong when people who live in the UK think they can have a better life in a warzone. How did that happen and what should/could we do to stop it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
"Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far."


Thank you for that, I will try and remember it.


Communists believe they can change the nature of man in order to make him (emphasis on the make) conform with their ideology, which really means diktat. I think Corbyn also foolishly think's that others, if you turn the cheek, will also follow such an example. The man is a fool he has lived a life away from reality. In this World if diplomacy is not accompanied with a big stick it is unlikely that you will have a credible foreign policy that anyone will listen to. I do not believe that it is our nature here in the UK to be pacifists or declare our country as neutral, I also do not believe that to be in our self interest.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
RJD.
The total amount of slaughter. That is a lot of deaths and a humungous amount of treasure just to rid the country of a despotic regime. Was it worth it? I think not.
That it was a despotic regime was not the reason for invasion, it was the threat to Iraq's neighbours in an area that the world relies on for oil, that was the problem. That is more or less what R.1441 said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 26 2015, 08:06 PM
C-too
Nov 26 2015, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 
Gansao.
The West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands ( if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere.
It is of course ridiculous to imply that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
The West is not party to either Islamic sectarianism or to Islamist extremism. And no one, absolutely no one forces Muslims to kill Muslims regardless of what the West does or does not do. The Sunni / Shia conflict (Iraq invasion of Iran) saw the death of over a million Muslims. The trend to put so much blame or to infer so much blame on the West, distorts the true picture and detracts from the real problem.

It is ridiculous to imply that it is ridiculous to' imply' that the "West has been party to the killing of hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of muslims in the ME and elsewhere".
Firstly because I didnt imply it..I asserted it and secondly it is bloody obvious unless your are blind,illiterate and obtuse. The West has had a history of adventurism and wars in the middle East since before the start of the 20 th century. To deny this is risible and dishonest.
The rest is simply strawman tripe.
As an aside I will state again what I have stated several times in the forlorn hope that it may just possibly get into your head.
If the area where YOU lived was as dismantled and broken by an outside source as much as the areas where ISIS operate. YOU would either be dead or a slave to a local warlord. Any female relatives of yours would possibly be raped and/or killed or perhaps a slave themselves.
Brits who have had no more exposure to danger than a dirty look in a car park and pontificate that Muslims are experiencing violence because they are innately violent are simply showing rank ignorance and are part of the PROBLEM.
I don't deny any of the West's involvement in the ME, but firstly I would remind you that much of the ME was under Turkish/Ottoman control for 400 years prior to 1918.
Nor do I deny the thousand years of Muslim abuse and enslavement of Westerners.

You choose to look for excuses while ignoring the problem of Islamic sectarianism.

But more importantly you choose to ignore the obvious FACT that no one forces Muslims to kill each other rather than to seek a pathway to peace and progress. A point that would be bloody obvious unless you were "blind, illiterate and obtuse".

Edited by C-too, Nov 27 2015, 09:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RoofGardener
Nov 26 2015, 09:00 PM
Gansao didn't state that 'the west' was responsible for the deaths, merely a party to them.

The "surplus mortality" of the Iraq war is around a million. (e.g. the deaths that happened, that would not have happened had the war not occured). The West isn't directly responsible for that, but it WAS the catalyst.
Unfortunately we do not know just how many deaths would have happened if there had been no invasion. Saddam killed thousands of his own people. Mass graves were uncovered after the invasion. And we have the likes of WMD used at Halabja.

Saddam was ignoring the Ceasefire Agreement. He had denied UN Inspectors entrance into Iraq 1998/2002, (hence the placing of troops on the borders). During which time he was indulging in prohibited missile programmes including the Jinin program designed to produce ICBMs. He had already attacked Iran and invaded Kuwait. He was a megalomaniac who was already responsible for over a million deaths. Given the history of Saddam the international community was not going to stand by a watch while he tested ICBMs. He would have had to have been stopped sooner or later.

Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

Ridiculous, Iraq was nearly totally disarmed just before invasion and that's a fact attested to by Blix and his UN partner.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 27 2015, 09:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I also do not think that you can draw this conclusion:

"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

The one thing that is vaguely reassuring is that the politicians are accepting that dismantling all aparatus of state in Iraq was a mistake and intend on not making the same mistake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 09:54 AM
"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

Ridiculous, Iraq was nearly totally disarmed just before invasion and that's a fact attested to by Blix and his UN partner.
Saddam did have a history of invasions and of mass killing. What makes you think he would be any different if he had been given a free rein to do as he pleased, as was the situation before troops were placed on the borders in 2002 ?

Why did the international community sign up to UN R.1441 ?
Why were troops placed on the borders of Iraq ?
Why were UN Inspectors still unable to give Iraq a clean bill of health after 12 years of attempting to do just that ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 27 2015, 10:28 AM
I also do not think that you can draw this conclusion:

"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

The one thing that is vaguely reassuring is that the politicians are accepting that dismantling all aparatus of state in Iraq was a mistake and intend on not making the same mistake.
I did draw the conclusion, based upon Saddam's history. He was a megalomaniac, not an angel in disguise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 10:31 AM
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 09:54 AM
"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

Ridiculous, Iraq was nearly totally disarmed just before invasion and that's a fact attested to by Blix and his UN partner.
Saddam did have a history of invasions and of mass killing. What makes you think he would be any different if he had been given a free rein to do as he pleased, as was the situation before troops were placed on the borders in 2002 ?

Why did the international community sign up to UN R.1441 ?
Why were troops placed on the borders of Iraq ?
Why were UN Inspectors still unable to give Iraq a clean bill of health after 12 years of attempting to do just that ?
My point stands: with no weapons, sanctions, an aux force established and ideally total de-militarisation of Iraq: Saddam could have been curtailed, controlled and sanctions lifted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 10:43 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 10:31 AM
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 09:54 AM
"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

Ridiculous, Iraq was nearly totally disarmed just before invasion and that's a fact attested to by Blix and his UN partner.
Saddam did have a history of invasions and of mass killing. What makes you think he would be any different if he had been given a free rein to do as he pleased, as was the situation before troops were placed on the borders in 2002 ?

Why did the international community sign up to UN R.1441 ?
Why were troops placed on the borders of Iraq ?
Why were UN Inspectors still unable to give Iraq a clean bill of health after 12 years of attempting to do just that ?
My point stands: with no weapons, sanctions, an aux force established and ideally total de-militarisation of Iraq: Saddam could have been curtailed, controlled and sanctions lifted.
Your point obvuoisly ignores the reality of what Saddam was about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
It really doesn't.

You think that the aux force in Iraq would not have deterred him? You think with no weapons he could have easily slaughtered people?

It is you who ignores the real reasons why Bush went into Iraq.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
As I understand it, Saddam's regime was on the verge of collapse as a result of sanctions, and the attacks of operation Southern Watch, and operation Desert Fox. Saddam was only months away from losing control of his military, and hence his grip on power. The result would have probably been some sort of military Junta, which may well have been more pragmatic, and attempted conciliation with the UN, removing the USA's public justification for further attacks.

Iraqi's would still be under the thumb of a dictatorial government, but there would have been order rather than chaos, and fewer net civilian deaths. The Kurds would probably have been massacred (again) however.

In my opinion, the invasion was driven more by an American president wanting to boost his domestic popularity, than it was by any genuine humanitarian or military considerations.

That's just my opinion. I have no links, unless you are willing to wait for a few days while I write a bogus Wikipedia page ?
Edited by RoofGardener, Nov 27 2015, 11:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
If we oversaw a successful demilitarization of Iraq anything could've been possible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
IMO, it was a tragedy.

The military strike was spectacularly successful. HOWEVER.... if that spearhead had been backed by an army of Military Police, Civil Engineers, mobile Generators, bridge-building equipment etcetera etcetera... in other words if we could have locked Baghdad down and prevented the looting, helped the police (and army) to maintain basic law and order, repaired core infrastructure (power, water, sewerage), and allowed a degree of normality of civilian life, then we could have avoided twelve years of chaos, disorder, death and destruction, and forstalled the rise of groups such as ISIS.

Instead, there was NO effective "after combat" plan. There was just a vague hope that grateful Iraqi's would immediately usher in a Elysium paradise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Indeed. But we should have just not bothered invading really.

If anyone in the ME needs their sh1t sorted it's Saudi.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 08:54 AM
Quote:
 
RJD.
The total amount of slaughter. That is a lot of deaths and a humungous amount of treasure just to rid the country of a despotic regime. Was it worth it? I think not.
That it was a despotic regime was not the reason for invasion, it was the threat to Iraq's neighbours in an area that the world relies on for oil, that was the problem. That is more or less what R.1441 said.
But those threats were near empty and easily dispelled as we saw in Gulf War I. The criticism really is to do with the fact that Blair/Bush has no real strategy, they had no concept of the end game and the polity that they desired. On reflection it was obvious that the fractions would be at each others throats and revenge on the Sunnis would be uppermost in many a Shiite mind. Excluding the Sunnis in the initial phase was a stupid mistake, Gen Petraeus spotted that and attempted a more coherent strategy, but unfortunately the USA left before he could finish that task. So the manner that the USA and the UK went about that task is not, in my mind, justified by the outcome. I hope wiser heads prevail when it comes to sorting out the disaster that is Syria.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 27 2015, 08:44 AM
On a different tack. There is clearly something wrong when people who live in the UK think they can have a better life in a warzone. How did that happen and what should/could we do to stop it.
People get sanitised visions of what war is like and love the idea of having hero worship or just the allure of adventure

Show more of the reality, ban the false portrayals? Won't happen and would probably have little effect. There is no species like mankind for believing in pipedreams.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 27 2015, 02:17 PM
ACH1967
Nov 27 2015, 08:44 AM
On a different tack. There is clearly something wrong when people who live in the UK think they can have a better life in a warzone. How did that happen and what should/could we do to stop it.
People get sanitised visions of what war is like and love the idea of having hero worship or just the allure of adventure

Show more of the reality, ban the false portrayals? Won't happen and would probably have little effect. There is no species like mankind for believing in pipedreams.
Ban? How dare they even try? That is the sort of talk that calls men to arms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 27 2015, 12:25 PM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 08:54 AM
Quote:
 
RJD.
The total amount of slaughter. That is a lot of deaths and a humungous amount of treasure just to rid the country of a despotic regime. Was it worth it? I think not.
That it was a despotic regime was not the reason for invasion, it was the threat to Iraq's neighbours in an area that the world relies on for oil, that was the problem. That is more or less what R.1441 said.
But those threats were near empty and easily dispelled as we saw in Gulf War I. The criticism really is to do with the fact that Blair/Bush has no real strategy, they had no concept of the end game and the polity that they desired. On reflection it was obvious that the fractions would be at each others throats and revenge on the Sunnis would be uppermost in many a Shiite mind. Excluding the Sunnis in the initial phase was a stupid mistake, Gen Petraeus spotted that and attempted a more coherent strategy, but unfortunately the USA left before he could finish that task. So the manner that the USA and the UK went about that task is not, in my mind, justified by the outcome. I hope wiser heads prevail when it comes to sorting out the disaster that is Syria.
I don't dispute the fact that mistakes were made.
But and it is a great big BUT, in the absence of inspections Saddam was on a roll, he was building up his military potential and had completely kicked the ceasefire agreement into touch.

If troops had not have been placed on the borders in 2002 the UN Inspectors would not have been allowed back in and there would have been nothing to stop Saddam continuing with his megalomaniacal desire for expansion and power.

Once troops were on the borders the options for Saddam and for the UN were extremely limited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 11:10 AM
If we oversaw a successful demilitarization of Iraq anything could've been possible.
A demilitarisation of Iraq ? without an invasion ? policed by who, the West ?

Even if that dream world solution had been attained, there would still have been the problems of insurgents, Islamic sectarianism and just who would run the country.
I really do not think you have thought this problem through.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
No it is a perfectly feasible solution, it has been done before and it worked.

Policed by who? Run by who? Its people; all Arab states in coalition (minus evil chunt saudi and other corrupt rich gulf states).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 10:43 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 10:31 AM
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 09:54 AM
"Bottom line, it seems highly likely that if the invasion had not taken place the death count would have been even higher than it is."

Ridiculous, Iraq was nearly totally disarmed just before invasion and that's a fact attested to by Blix and his UN partner.
Saddam did have a history of invasions and of mass killing. What makes you think he would be any different if he had been given a free rein to do as he pleased, as was the situation before troops were placed on the borders in 2002 ?

Why did the international community sign up to UN R.1441 ?
Why were troops placed on the borders of Iraq ?
Why were UN Inspectors still unable to give Iraq a clean bill of health after 12 years of attempting to do just that ?
My point stands: with no weapons, sanctions, an aux force established and ideally total de-militarisation of Iraq: Saddam could have been curtailed, controlled and sanctions lifted.
Who was going to take his weapons from him ?
Sanctions did not work, were condemned by many notable people and were in any case in free fall after the UN agreed an oil-for-food strategy.
An axillary force, no matter what nation it came from, would have guaranteed an ongoing problem with insurgents. (That particular cat had been out of the bag for decades).
Total demilitarisation is the sort of pipe dream that only a dreamer could come up with.

Saddam slipped the net in 1998. We now know with absolute certainty that he had no intention of altering his ways and putting his dreams to bed. In hindsight it seems perfectly clear that nothing but invasion was going to sort him out.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 05:55 PM
No it is a perfectly feasible solution, it has been done before and it worked.

Policed by who? Run by who? Its people; all Arab states in coalition (minus evil chunt saudi and other corrupt rich gulf states).
Stop and think for goodness sake. You are talking invasion and insurgencies, you know, shock and awe, car bombs and suicide bombers etc. just as has been the case since the invasion. Now you want a coalition of all Arab states to do the job :facepalm: If that was feasible then why not get them to do the job now ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2 you just skip inconvenient points that basically make my argument for me. The insurgents could easily have been controlled by correctly governing the country with a league of Arab states, all weapons destroyed (Blix-checked) and oil used fir the good of the people. Iraq could have been an ultra-democratic, ultra-rich and powerful, modern, secular democracy.

We helped scupper that opportunity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 06:24 PM
C2 you just skip inconvenient points that basically make my argument for me. The insurgents could easily have been controlled by correctly governing the country with a league of Arab states, all weapons destroyed (Blix-checked) and oil used fir the good of the people. Iraq could have been an ultra-democratic, ultra-rich and powerful, modern, secular democracy.

We helped scupper that opportunity.
Apart from the fact that Saddam's Iraq was a problem that had to be sorted out.

What or who stopped Iraq from being an ultra-democratic, ultra-rich and powerful, modern, secular democracy since 2004 ?

And what makes you think a league of Arab states was available to police Iraq ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 06:12 PM
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 10:43 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 10:31 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
My point stands: with no weapons, sanctions, an aux force established and ideally total de-militarisation of Iraq: Saddam could have been curtailed, controlled and sanctions lifted.
Who was going to take his weapons from him ?
Sanctions did not work, were condemned by many notable people and were in any case in free fall after the UN agreed an oil-for-food strategy.
An axillary force, no matter what nation it came from, would have guaranteed an ongoing problem with insurgents. (That particular cat had been out of the bag for decades).
Total demilitarisation is the sort of pipe dream that only a dreamer could come up with.

Saddam slipped the net in 1998. We now know with absolute certainty that he had no intention of altering his ways and putting his dreams to bed. In hindsight it seems perfectly clear that nothing but invasion was going to sort him out.

I do not think that any reasoble person would argue with that resume' however, a standing force of UN military should have been installed for several years until such time as the "vaccuum" was filled and a coalition party formed to lead and administer the country in as peaceful a manner as possible as, today it is plain to see that the differing tribes are not interested in burying hatchets and compromising.

A veritable pandoras box has been opened with no prospect in sight of closing the lid.....if ever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
The oil and resources; a small share is still a big incentive.

Shared out equitably, Iraq could still have been ultra-wealthy, the already present aux force (with Arab and some NATO backup) could have enforced demilitarization of Iraq.

Saddam could have been slowly retired quietly and a new gen of more democratic native Iraqis could have taken over.

I would like Iraq to have been like Iran, you will object to this but Iran is a good point of ref; a steeping stone towards something better..incremental change is much better than invading.

Remember: if we fucked Saudi's sh1t up and curtailed a few other gulf states, we'd not have such a problem with Sunni extremists....the Shias are more easily controllable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 06:40 PM
The oil and resources; a small share is still a big incentive.

Shared out equitably, Iraq could still have been ultra-wealthy, the already present aux force (with Arab and some NATO backup) could have enforced demilitarization of Iraq.

Saddam could have been slowly retired quietly and a new gen of more democratic native Iraqis could have taken over.

I would like Iraq to have been like Iran, you will object to this but Iran is a good point of ref; a steeping stone towards something better..incremental change is much better than invading.

Remember: if we fucked Saudi's sh1t up and curtailed a few other gulf states, we'd not have such a problem with Sunni extremists....the Shias are more easily controllable.
:nono:

Iraqs GDP per capita peaked at £3,550 (just before Iraq Iran war) no basis for "ultra-wealthy" which is why Saddam wanted to steal Kuwait's Oil (and then Saudi's) and in the meantime made sure what money there was went disproportionately to his tribe.

As for you imploring some sort of invasion of Saudi you need to think through both the impracticalities of that and the moral conflict with your own statements about invading Iraq.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 06:40 PM
The oil and resources; a small share is still a big incentive.

Shared out equitably, Iraq could still have been ultra-wealthy, the already present aux force (with Arab and some NATO backup) could have enforced demilitarization of Iraq.

Saddam could have been slowly retired quietly and a new gen of more democratic native Iraqis could have taken over.

I would like Iraq to have been like Iran, you will object to this but Iran is a good point of ref; a steeping stone towards something better..incremental change is much better than invading.

Remember: if we fucked Saudi's sh1t up and curtailed a few other gulf states, we'd not have such a problem with Sunni extremists....the Shias are more easily controllable.
You are still ignoring the need to invade in order to wrest power from Saddam. You also ignore the problem of insurgents, plus the sectarian divide that existed.
Iraq has been left to run itself with a democratically elected government, elected by the people. The mess it is in today appears to be the result of the Sunnis being disregarded by the government. How does anyone sort that one out ?

Your ideas are little more than way out wishful thinking, for which you have no evidence could be achieved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 27 2015, 08:38 PM
skwirked
Nov 27 2015, 06:40 PM
The oil and resources; a small share is still a big incentive.

Shared out equitably, Iraq could still have been ultra-wealthy, the already present aux force (with Arab and some NATO backup) could have enforced demilitarization of Iraq.

Saddam could have been slowly retired quietly and a new gen of more democratic native Iraqis could have taken over.

I would like Iraq to have been like Iran, you will object to this but Iran is a good point of ref; a steeping stone towards something better..incremental change is much better than invading.

Remember: if we fucked Saudi's sh1t up and curtailed a few other gulf states, we'd not have such a problem with Sunni extremists....the Shias are more easily controllable.
:nono:

Iraqs GDP per capita peaked at £3,550 (just before Iraq Iran war) no basis for "ultra-wealthy" which is why Saddam wanted to steal Kuwait's Oil (and then Saudi's) and in the meantime made sure what money there was went disproportionately to his tribe.

As for you imploring some sort of invasion of Saudi you need to think through both the impracticalities of that and the moral conflict with your own statements about invading Iraq.

Saudi's govt as Cymru and others point out is utterly SICK and evil and must be stopped at any cost.

I didn't see Saddam try his best to utterly destroy and control the whole ME?

Think it through. If we genuinely gave control over it to Arab states and the Arab people there'd be no reason to resent our interference. The poor Saudi bloke has a mean existence and deserves better.

Re Iraq, they were sanctioned...what do you expect, IIRC sanctions were only partially lifted. Also you missed out Iraq's unexplored/other nat resources.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply