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 (762 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:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 28 2015, 02:16 AM
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.


Have you ever been to Saudi? I have even if only briefly. The government is moderate compared to what the masses there want which is a Sunni state and by and large that's what the house of Saud lets them have.

Anyway compared to an Iraq government that used WMD on it own people you would say the Saudi regime is worse so the former should not have been invaded and the latter must? I'm really struggling to understand that.
Edited by Steve K, Nov 28 2015, 10:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's not really the govt, more the powerful Saudis who are interwined with the govt if you see what I mean. And the govt may appear moderate on the surface..

All such Arab states treat their citizens like sh1t, I have read dozens of reports about the place and my best friend lived in both SA and Kuwait fir many years and told me exactly what it was like.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
But if you remove that government you will get the most turbo charged ISIS state

If you've ever been in a Saudi market when the call to prayer starts you will know exactly where the Saudi people place their loyalty
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Not if you fill the vacuum with a fair non-puppet govt that's actually chosen by the more moderate Saudi Arabians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 05:45 PM
RJD
Nov 27 2015, 12:25 PM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 08:54 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepRJD.
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.
I agree that Saddam was a monster not to be trusted, but again with hindsight, there was no evidence that he posed any imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq. The claim that he would continue to build an arsenal of nasty weapons with a plan to do harm to neighbours is no more than an opinion. We saw little evidence of this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 28 2015, 11:24 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 05:45 PM
RJD
Nov 27 2015, 12:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepRJD.
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.
I agree that Saddam was a monster not to be trusted, but again with hindsight, there was no evidence that he posed any imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq. The claim that he would continue to build an arsenal of nasty weapons with a plan to do harm to neighbours is no more than an opinion. We saw little evidence of this.
He himself admitted that as soon as sanctions were over he was going to restart his WMD programme, he'd developed and tested longer range rockets to deliver such

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 28 2015, 10:58 AM
But if you remove that government you will get the most turbo charged ISIS state

If you've ever been in a Saudi market when the call to prayer starts you will know exactly where the Saudi people place their loyalty
One thing we should have learned and that is regime change in the ME with the desire to instal a western democracy is very very difficult and the alternative to what exists or existed is often a lot worse. Put is correct, the alternative to Assad is proving to be worse and I suspect if we rock the boat in Saudi then we will see the same reactions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
We could've easily curtailed Saddam's ambitions and toyed with him until he gave up.

RG's point about the military may have merit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 28 2015, 11:40 AM
We could've easily curtailed Saddam's ambitions and toyed with him until he gave up. . .
We did for 12 years, it didn't work and less disciplined states were starting to make plans to embrace him again
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
We could likely have told the 'less disciplined' to bugger off.

It is also arguable that letting Kurdish madsacres et al occur would still have been better than Iraq as is. That argument may well have meeit, even as cruel and callous as it sounds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 28 2015, 11:51 AM
We could likely have told the 'less disciplined' to bugger off.

It is also arguable that letting Kurdish madsacres et al occur would still have been better than Iraq as is. That argument may well have meeit, even as cruel and callous as it sounds.
Even if they were nuclear armed nations? :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 28 2015, 11:24 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 05:45 PM
RJD
Nov 27 2015, 12:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepRJD.
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.
I agree that Saddam was a monster not to be trusted, but again with hindsight, there was no evidence that he posed any imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq. The claim that he would continue to build an arsenal of nasty weapons with a plan to do harm to neighbours is no more than an opinion. We saw little evidence of this.
He did not pose an "imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq". UN R.1441 did not claim that he did.

In the absence UN Inspections;
He produced a number of missiles with a greater range than allowed by the UN / ceasefire agreement.
He was in the process of developing ICBMs. Range in excess of 6x greater than that allowed by the ceasefire agreement.
He had some missiles capable of delivering WMD.
He had a stock of prohibited missile engines. (Believed to be of French origin).
He had repaired missile equipment that had been broken on the orders of the UN Inspectors.
He had a quantity of chemical precursor.

If he had no evil intentions he could have built a phenomenal defensive military wall against any invasion and STILL have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors, the ceasefire agreement and with R.1441.
That he failed to comply with the ceasefire agreement for 12 years is an indication that he had never had a change of heart, still the same old megalomaniac, and never had any intention of complying with the ceasefire agreement.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Luckily for you Hans Blix is not on the forum at the moment. ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 28 2015, 11:40 AM
We could've easily curtailed Saddam's ambitions and toyed with him until he gave up.
Sorry, but that is pure magic wand thinking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:20 PM
Luckily for you Hans Blix is not on the forum at the moment. ;D
He would not be able to deny the truth, so what's your point ? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:23 PM
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:20 PM
Luckily for you Hans Blix is not on the forum at the moment. ;D
He would not be able to deny the truth, so what's your point ? :)
BLAIR DID IT!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:28 PM
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:23 PM
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:20 PM
Luckily for you Hans Blix is not on the forum at the moment. ;D
He would not be able to deny the truth, so what's your point ? :)
BLAIR DID IT!
:) ;D !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:42 PM
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:28 PM
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:23 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
BLAIR DID IT!
:) ;D !jk!
Well, until Mr Chillcot comes forth (eventually) with his report, I think it would be better for us all to keep our conspiracies to ourselves.
Edited by Rich, Nov 28 2015, 11:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 28 2015, 11:48 PM
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:42 PM
Tigger
Nov 28 2015, 11:28 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
:) ;D !jk!
Well, until Mr Chillcot comes forth (eventually) with his report, I think it would be better for us all to keep our conspiracies to ourselves.
Fair comment, but Chilcott won't refute my points in post 92.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:51 PM
Rich
Nov 28 2015, 11:48 PM
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:42 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well, until Mr Chillcot comes forth (eventually) with his report, I think it would be better for us all to keep our conspiracies to ourselves.
Fair comment, but Chilcott won't refute my points in post 92.
As you say, but it will not further any more debate until such time as we know what the findings bring forth, better to spend our time debating factual and present discussions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

The decision to invade Iraq was hastened by the approach of spring and climate change. It was invade or pull out of Kuwait, return home and have no threat to allow Hans Blix to carry on as intended. Without those troops on his border Saddam had no compulsion to play ball with the UN inspectors.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RoofGardener
Member Avatar
Lord of Plantpots
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:15 PM
.....He did not pose an "imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq". UN R.1441 did not claim that he did....

You might be correct in so far as a LOT of his mechanised infantry and armour was destroyed in the retreat from Kuwait. However, I'm not so sure that his neighbours - especially Kuwait - would have been QUITE so sanguine ?

Quote:
 

If he had no evil intentions he could have built a phenomenal defensive military wall against any invasion and STILL have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors, the ceasefire agreement and with R.1441.

True of course. However, he may have feared (with some justification, as it turns out) that the USA would have attacked regardless, and he wanted some sort of 'trump card' to deter it. He had already seen that traditional defenses (especially traditional things like tanks and artillary et al) did NOT survive very well in a desert environment against Western air power. Nor do command and control centres. Consider that when we DID invade, we only had around 130,000 ground troops, or thereabouts. His army was FAR bigger, but it was utterly crushed. Traditional defences died in 1903 at Kittyhawk.

Nobody bothers North Korea because it has Nukes. Perhaps this was influencing Saddam's thinking ?

[/quote]

C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:22 PM
skwirked
Nov 28 2015, 11:40 AM
We could've easily curtailed Saddam's ambitions and toyed with him until he gave up.
Sorry, but that is pure magic wand thinking.

I disagree C-too. The regime was in dire economic straights, with no end in sight. Saddam ultimately relied on the army to keep him in power; what happens then if he struggles to pay their wages ? I really do think that an internal putsch was likely within 6-12 months.

Rich
Nov 28 2015, 11:48 PM
Well, until Mr Chillcot comes forth (eventually) with his report, I think it would be better for us all to keep our conspiracies to ourselves.


Whaaaaaat ? Where's the fun in THAT ? ;D

Edited by RoofGardener, Nov 29 2015, 09:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 28 2015, 11:15 PM
RJD
Nov 28 2015, 11:24 AM
C-too
Nov 27 2015, 05:45 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepRJD.
I agree that Saddam was a monster not to be trusted, but again with hindsight, there was no evidence that he posed any imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq. The claim that he would continue to build an arsenal of nasty weapons with a plan to do harm to neighbours is no more than an opinion. We saw little evidence of this.
He did not pose an "imminent and immediate danger to anyone outside of Iraq". UN R.1441 did not claim that he did.

In the absence UN Inspections;
He produced a number of missiles with a greater range than allowed by the UN / ceasefire agreement.
He was in the process of developing ICBMs. Range in excess of 6x greater than that allowed by the ceasefire agreement.
He had some missiles capable of delivering WMD.
He had a stock of prohibited missile engines. (Believed to be of French origin).
He had repaired missile equipment that had been broken on the orders of the UN Inspectors.
He had a quantity of chemical precursor.

If he had no evil intentions he could have built a phenomenal defensive military wall against any invasion and STILL have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors, the ceasefire agreement and with R.1441.
That he failed to comply with the ceasefire agreement for 12 years is an indication that he had never had a change of heart, still the same old megalomaniac, and never had any intention of complying with the ceasefire agreement.



Yep, but still no proof that the monster intended to attack his neighbours or us any time soon. He had bits and pieces left behind from programmes long abandoned and his soldiers were not only short on boots but also boot laces. Best not bamboozle ourselves into justifying that fiasco.
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
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply