Iraq loses control of Fallujah to al-Qaeda
 

From Ch4News Live


Iraq loses control of Fallujah to al-Qaeda



Just proves all those Americans and British troops that Died there
did it for nothing.



http://www.channel4.com/news/iraq-al...tle-insurgents


[US Secretary of State
John Kerry says America
will help Iraq fight al-Qaeda-linked
militants - but not with troops - after
the government loses control of the key city of Fallujah.]

They didn't die for nothing... that's disrespectful.

But all that Fighting
and sad deaths
and Now its under AlQeeda Control


Bush/Blair Fecked Up.


Invasion Of Iraq was Dumb

Sad situation.

****** sake...

No..... They all died for nothing, sacrificed as fodder in a global political chess game....!!!!

Shameful really... Soldiers should not die but if they do give up their life for their Country then at least let it be a real war against a real enemy army who threaten to invade GB , not this nonsense....

Maybe people ought to know what they are talking about before they wade in with statements such as 'they died for nothing'.

If only lily. But the trouble with freedom of speech is it gives a platform to the thoughtless. At least, I'm hoping it's thoughtlessness and not plain old cruelty. Because, as we know, those men that died had wives, families, loved ones... It's like people saying "Hey - the man you loved? He died for nothing....!!!! Yay me! Score 1 point!"

Really well said Livia as always.
t does seem a sad state of affairs may be looming again in parts of Iraq however.I hope the Iraqi govt soon gets control back of the inflamed areas.

No will not happen as the Leader
can not hold all the tribes as one.
The Ch4 Report showed that


Iraq is Doomed

Their deaths were not pointless in terms of what they were sent there to do because in reality, the soundbite that they were there to unite Iraq under democracy was absolute nonsense. That was not why they were sent. So it doesn't matter if the country now crumbles: in the eyes of the global powers who started that war, this is completely irrelevant, and the job is no less "done", so the soldiers deaths were not pointless... They are troops sworn in to carry out orders to achieve objectives. They carried out their orders in Iraq and the objectives (which had nothing to do with installing a democratic system) were achieved.

Whether or not each of us agrees with those motivations or objectives is an entirely separate debate. It is not a soldiers job to decide the objectives of his commanders. And one soldier dying fulfilling his role can be no more or less "pointless" than any other.

After taking over parts of Fallujah, militants linked to al Qaeda say they will punish those linked to the government.

http://news.sky.com/story/1190686/ir...ght-government

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-522x293.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-522x293.jpg

..yeah, that's really well put, I'm not so good with words but it's basically what I meant to say...'to serve our country' and that's what they have all done through every war and without question and without that, none of us would have the lives we havenow..there is nothing about that which could ever be described as pointless and it's offensive to the loved ones of all of them to ever feel that anything those soldiers did was without point and so totally not accurate...

I think a lot of the older politicians who actually remember the 2nd WW had more understanding that War was a last resort a final complete failure of the political process. They also in my opinion would only put troops in harms way when there really was no other alternative. They knew that only when the stakes where at their highest (ie invasion and subjugation) should War be the last option and all that it brings.

But in my mind today's politicians have a far more detached view of war and see the deaths of our armed forces only in political terms ie a few deaths are OK but over a certain number questions will be asked etc...

They seem to think invading countries on a crusade to bring peace and democracy is a fair exchange for the lives of 400-500 servicemen/women.....it is NOT, these countries will eventually sort out their problems as we did 3 or 4 hundred years ago..

Our politicians knee jerk reaction to get militarily involved in other countries conflicts is arrogant and shameful in equal measure. we should help these countries sort out their problems peacefully NOT wade in and drop 1,000 lb bombs onto vague targets more than a mile below. That does not help anybody and makes us the agressor, turns it into a religious war and most importantly ensure more and more British armed forces are needlessly killed.

I hope the current climate of ending these wars continues and no further conflicts are started. I'm glad the British prime minister had the sense not to agree to send British troops into Syria in what would have become major arena for bloodshed..!!!

War is bloody,nasty and should only ever be used as an absolute last resort...!!!!

I don't believe we should be constitutionally allowed to declare war on another nation, unless the children of politicians are automatically drafted to serve at the same time.

If a war is just, then it's just.

Yes Some are
but not all.


al -Qaeda was never in Iraq
Fecking War Criminals Blair /Blair brought them in ( by Invading Iraq )
Full Circle

I don't know that that's necessarily fair, because NO ONE is drafted (currently) in this country. If there was mandatory military service (many European countries do have this) then I'd agree. However, all military personnel are carrying out their chosen career, and were (or had the ability to be) clear on what that involved when they signed up (i.e. that they are to serve their commanding officers without moral question, and that the job is dangerous and there is a chance of loss of life).

Or, if it was the case that the soldiers on signing up believed that they were signing up to a national defense force who would not be sent out as aggressors. But again, this is not the case with the UK military, and recruits know and agree to that. Put simply; if someone doesn't want to be sent to war (as aggressors or otherwise) then they shouldn't commit themselves to military service.

I guess I sort of think... what you're saying is akin to saying "you shouldn't call the fire brigade to save you from a fire unless you'd be prepared to force your own children into a burning building to save others". Like soldiers, firefighters know that their job is dangerous, and that they risk being seriously injured or killed, before they sign up for that career.

Well, this is incorrect but has partial truth to it. Al Qaeda always had a presence (as it does in all middle-eastern states), but Saddam had a firmer grip on the country as a dictator than the current fledgling "democratic" government does. The country is weakened and that's allowing the small Al Qaeda presence that was already there to grow and find a foothold.

Yes Bush /Blair
Destroyed that Nation
They Are War Criminals

Well at the moment, war is completely inconsequential for most people. I know it's not completely fair, and I also know it's probably unworkable, but it's just what I believe. I don't think the Iraq war happens if my rule is in place, though.

War only affects so few of us these days, as it's something we just watch in the early hours on skynewsHD night vision cam, whilst the ambiguity of pained speeches from leaders pretending to be concerned about the soldiers whilst simultaneously sending them off to die illegally is stark and infuriating.

That fire service analogy misses the mark completely.

I wouldn't put it that simply; they are war criminals in the sense that the war was indisputably illegal (they fabricated an excuse to go to war) but it wouldn't really be accurate to say that ordinary people in Iraq weren't already in a lot of trouble. Although even if you were to believe that it was some moral crusade to remove an evil man and further the democratic process... they really did make an unholy mess. Going in with a bulldozer without any real plans for reconstruction. As a result a potentially MORE dangerous state has been created, without the control of a dictator, and with many previously harmless people who have now lost spouses, children or other loved ones to "collateral damage" and are now ripe pickings for indocrination and extremism.

That's not true. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq at that time, or before. Al Qaeda only moved in after we forced the country into civil war.

It is infuriating, but their lack of concern for soldiers is only an extension of their lack of concern for human life in general, military or otherwise. They see them as a statistic, just as with civilians dying in understaffed / underfunded UK hospitals or the countless ATOS deaths.

My analogy with the fire service is only this: both jobs carry heavy risks, but both are voluntary. That unscrupulous politicians might send you off to die in an illegal war isn't a secret... it's fairly well established information at this point, and so any new recruit in our armed forces can't POSSIBLY claim that they didn't know being sent into a morally ambiguous warzone was a very real possibility at the point of signing up for service.

If someone doesn't want to fight in an illegal war at this point, then being blunt, they should avoid military service like the plague. They are not drafted. They make that choice.

It had no visible presence. Al Qaeda has a presence in pretty much every country in the world. They didn't just move in from other countries; they were ready and primed to start converting grieving Iraqi people as soon as the bombs started dropping.

It's just not true. Richard Clarke, who was the main guy for defence in the Us - from Reagan through to Dubbya has admitted it. All that information that we were fed in Colin Powells UN Speech was basically made up. It's just not true to claim otherwise.