[arista]

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.]

[Z]

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Zee

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

[lily.]

Sad situation.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

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

****** sake...

[Nedusa]

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....

[lily.]

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

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lily.

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!"

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really well said Livia as always.
It 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

[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.

[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....!!!!

[user104658]

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.

[Ammi]

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.

..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...

[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.

[arista]

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

[Nedusa]

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

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

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

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.

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.