Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

I think if my rule was in place, we'd have still fought WWII, but we wouldn't have fought in Iraq. That seems like a pretty good rule to me.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

I Never Voted for Punk Blair



Bush Blair War Criminals

Originally Posted by arista

I Never Voted for Punk Blair



Bush Blair War Criminals

It doesn't matter. Whomever the Tory/liberal that you did vote for was, if they were in power, then we'd have still been roped in. You can use Blair as the figurehead if you like, but you can guarantee the pm of America's 51st state, would have been right there with them.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Yes Ammi you're right I was a bit insulting to Livia for which I apologise, her posts are actually quite informative and often humerous. I was trying to make a serious point (and not for the first time) Livia has taken my post out of context and replied with a sarcastic or patronising comment.

Not sure why.... we share the same views on most things..........

It is a difficult area to adaquately express one's view because I still feel all British servicemen and servicewomen who have died whilst fighting in these types of wars (where we invade foreign countries and bomb and murder innocent people to start with) are not justifiable wars and our service peoples deaths are unnecessary.

But I do agree they have made the ultimate sacrifice for their Country and given up their lives to protect all of us. I just wish the wars they died in were a bit more black and white and not so politically motivated...!!!

Your posts really interest me Nedusa, it's interesting to see a different point of view. The bit in bold especially intrigues me, I'd say that all wars are extremely politically motivated, I can't think of a single one that hasn't been politically motivated and has been more black and white, as you say... going right back to primitive times, human beings have been territorial and the feeling of belonging to some kind of tribe or community has been the most decisive factor in whether wars happen or not. People invade territories for some kind of gain, they incorporate territory into their own, other people rebel, new territories are formed...

Yes, the Iraq war was different from World War II because it was a one sided war. I think it's wrong to term it a war, it should be referred to as a conflict or something else. I would never call the deaths of soldiers a waste of life in the Iraq conflict, though. They were sent there with objectives, they were willing volunteers and they wouldn't be there if they weren't committed to the task. I am of the opinion that the forces sent into Iraq have made things worse; but I think things were always going to get worse if they were going to get better. A man who had complete control over the country was ousted, people were so used to being dictated to that they didn't know how to manage their own freedom; you can't suddenly become a functioning democratic state after years of dictatorship. Yes, the British and American forces have made Britain and the USA antagonistic forces in the region. Yes, that's why there has been a rise in anti-Western movements. And yes, it's devastating that lives are lost when the aim (or supposed aim) is to secure peace.

But I don't think there was any other way. Look at UN peacekeeping forces - they're powerless to intervene in hand to hand combat: Rwanda and Bosnia spring to mind. Once Saddam Hussein had been removed - were they supposed to step back and wait with bated breath for democracy to flourish? A new dictator would have simply slipped into his place. Should they have taken a UN peacekeeping approach and simply just stood there, having a presence in the region, without actually doing anything? Perhaps the heavy handed approach was the only feasible one. So while Fallujah may have fallen under Al Qaeda control, we must remember that a conflict is just that: a conflict. It's not over until it's over. The loss of Fallujah will either redouble efforts to secure the region, or the forces will take the hint and leave the country to its own devices... so I don't think any soldier deaths can be described as pointless at all. They fought for something they believed in and they died for it too. We could split hairs over whether that's stupid, needless, honourable or admirable - but their lives weren't wasted, they did something they believed in.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

The suggestion that there were zero Al Qaeda agents in Iraq before the beginning of the war is simply impossible, though? I'm not saying they were a significant presence or that there were any more than there currently are in any western nation, but they were certainly there, and ready to radicalize a pushed population.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Zee

Your posts really interest me Nedusa, it's interesting to see a different point of view. The bit in bold especially intrigues me, I'd say that all wars are extremely politically motivated, I can't think of a single one that hasn't been politically motivated and has been more black and white, as you say... going right back to primitive times, human beings have been territorial and the feeling of belonging to some kind of tribe or community has been the most decisive factor in whether wars happen or not. People invade territories for some kind of gain, they incorporate territory into their own, other people rebel, new territories are formed...

Yes, the Iraq war was different from World War II because it was a one sided war. I think it's wrong to term it a war, it should be referred to as a conflict or something else. I would never call the deaths of soldiers a waste of life in the Iraq conflict, though. They were sent there with objectives, they were willing volunteers and they wouldn't be there if they weren't committed to the task. I am of the opinion that the forces sent into Iraq have made things worse; but I think things were always going to get worse if they were going to get better. A man who had complete control over the country was ousted, people were so used to being dictated to that they didn't know how to manage their own freedom; you can't suddenly become a functioning democratic state after years of dictatorship. Yes, the British and American forces have made Britain and the USA antagonistic forces in the region. Yes, that's why there has been a rise in anti-Western movements. And yes, it's devastating that lives are lost when the aim (or supposed aim) is to secure peace.

But I don't think there was any other way. Look at UN peacekeeping forces - they're powerless to intervene in hand to hand combat: Rwanda and Bosnia spring to mind. Once Saddam Hussein had been removed - were they supposed to step back and wait with bated breath for democracy to flourish? A new dictator would have simply slipped into his place. Should they have taken a UN peacekeeping approach and simply just stood there, having a presence in the region, without actually doing anything? Perhaps the heavy handed approach was the only feasible one. So while Fallujah may have fallen under Al Qaeda control, we must remember that a conflict is just that: a conflict. It's not over until it's over. The loss of Fallujah will either redouble efforts to secure the region, or the forces will take the hint and leave the country to its own devices... so I don't think any soldier deaths can be described as pointless at all. They fought for something they believed in and they died for it too. We could split hairs over whether that's stupid, needless, honourable or admirable - but their lives weren't wasted, they did something they believed in.

Zee, good post I did reply earlier today but my post has been removed I think. Possibly something to do with the bit of fracas with Livia ( her posts have been removed also) shame really as I made a few valid points in the post. Watching CBB now and posting on that , will try and post on this tomorrow.

Let's hope it doesn't get removed also....!!!!

[Nemo123]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

+ 1.

[Nemo123]

The US and Britain knew exactly what they were doing, they were throwing a spanner in the works, and they have left behind sectarianism and carnage, just as they planned. You see American foreign policy, and by extension British foreign policy is, you roll under us or we blow you to bits. We don't tolerate rivals to our world hegemony.

[Nemo123]

Saddam became a real threat to America and Britain when he refused to cow tow to the American hegemony. When he threatened the petro dollar by using the Euro instead, and proposed setting up a rival stock exchange or burge.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The suggestion that there were zero Al Qaeda agents in Iraq before the beginning of the war is simply impossible, though? I'm not saying they were a significant presence or that there were any more than there currently are in any western nation, but they were certainly there, and ready to radicalize a pushed population.

Depends how far you want to water it down. There may well have been people connected to Al Qaeda in Iraq, but they were not there for operations. Sadam despised them, so he would have just wiped them out.

Sadam didn't have any lofty goals for Islam beyond maintaining his own power, which put him at odds with the goals of the Wahhabi jihad movement.

It's really hard to infiltrate countries with dictatorships because they work through fear, and feeding information to the regime to protect your own neck is the way it works.

But to repeat - Al Qaeda were not operating in Iraq at that time, and nor would they had Sadam remained in power.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Depends how far you want to water it down. There may well have been people connected to Al Qaeda in Iraq, but they were not there for operations. Sadam despised them, so he would have just wiped them out.

Sadam didn't have any lofty goals for Islam beyond maintaining his own power, which put him at odds with the goals of the Wahhabi jihad movement.

It's really hard to infiltrate countries with dictatorships because they work through fear, and feeding information to the regime to protect your own neck is the way it works.

But to repeat - Al Qaeda were not operating in Iraq at that time, and nor would they had Sadam remained in power.

We're on the same page but this is pretty much what I was saying - there would have been an opportunistic "hidden" Al Qaeda presence that would not have been able to gain a foothold. The benefits of the invasion for them would have been two-fold: both taking down the regime and leaving the country weakened and in tatters allowing them time to grow, and also providing a massive "stock" of devastated people who are easy to indoctrinate. I always think of it this way... Can you imagine yourself becoming a terrorist hell-bent on the destruction of the west? Probably not. Now imagine your only child has just been killed by shrapnel on their way home, from a US drone attack. Now can you imagine gleefully plotting the downfall of the west? I can. I'd watch the world burn.

Anyway... yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Silent, waiting presence + hundreds of thousands of people with dead family members + man with solid grip on the country taken out of play = instant army. I'm also very skeptical that western military analysts wouldn't have realized this before the start of the war.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

We're on the same page but this is pretty much what I was saying - there would have been an opportunistic "hidden" Al Qaeda presence that would not have been able to gain a foothold. The benefits of the invasion for them would have been two-fold: both taking down the regime and leaving the country weakened and in tatters allowing them time to grow, and also providing a massive "stock" of devastated people who are easy to indoctrinate. I always think of it this way... Can you imagine yourself becoming a terrorist hell-bent on the destruction of the west? Probably not. Now imagine your only child has just been killed by shrapnel on their way home, from a US drone attack. Now can you imagine gleefully plotting the downfall of the west? I can. I'd watch the world burn.

Anyway... yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Silent, waiting presence + hundreds of thousands of people with dead family members + man with solid grip on the country taken out of play = instant army. I'm also very skeptical that western military analysts wouldn't have realized this before the start of the war.

I don't think we are. I'm saying that it was impossible for an existing/hidden Al Qaeda cell to exist in Iraq under Sadam, and they had absolutely no presence in the country in the lead up to 9/11 or post 9/11 - pre invasion.

Al Qaeda were closer to Iran, which would have made a relationship with Iraq pre-invasion completely impossible.