iraq 3 years on.....

[ifuckingrule]

i know a few people from PP were pro-invasion back in 2003. do people still think that the removal of saddam without the UNs backing has been worth the troubles of the last 3 years? with hindsight, do people think it couldve been handled better?

[Giggy of Telford]

My main thought is that regardless of the lack of W.M.D there was still a big problem with how Saddam was treating the people of Iraq and other nearby countries, it wasn't handled well at all to be fair but I think that was more down to the UN not standing up to Saddam.

[DJhinckley]

hindsight is what people who daren't take responsibility for decisions, use to justify their apathy.

In short yes I think it has been, and is still being, worth it. For an example take Rwanda - I personally think that the greatest crime of recent times is that those that wield the power did not use it to stop the mass genocide of innocents in Rwanda. If nothing had been done in Iraq would we be using your hindsight to look back at the last 5 years and say why didn't anyone step in to stop the oppression of the Iraqis?

People tend to get wrapped up in the Anti-American thing of it all, when in fact they should be asking themselves why doesn't the country with the greatest power use that power to stop every oppressor and every murdering dictator in this world.

There should never ever be another Rwanda, millions died and the whole world looked away, if we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later.

[ifuckingrule]

"why doesn't the country with the greatest power use that power to stop every oppressor and every murdering dictator in this world."

is this the same country that tortures people in abu ghraib, holds people without trial (and violates the peoples human rights) in guantanemo bay and has recently been accused of massacring innocent people?

[pies]

This war hasn't been worth the death of 2000 American troops, 100+ British troops and the countless thousands of Iraqi civillians, killed in the initial invasion and the subsequent violence. The American led invasion force went in with no clear exit stratergy and are paying the cost for this in terms of money and the most important commodity of all, Human lives by the day. Is some old grudge really worth that? My pre-war opposistion is being justified by the day unfortunatly

[DJhinckley]

all easy to say when you are not the people hiding or running scared from oppression, and also an anti government view that some people in the world are still not allowed to have or face having to live in exile just to comment on their own government. So as long as you are OK, in front of your telly with your PC and your Playstation and the opportunity to have your say, then that's OK then. What about the people in this world that aren't allowed a say. If you don't think they should be given the chance to make their own choice, then I say you shouldn't have the chance to comment on it either. So again, hindsight is what people who daren't take responsibility for decisions, use to justify their apathy.

You are obviously anti-american as your piece of rhetoric shows and that this thread was started merely for you to have a chance to slag off the yanks. Ok now you've had your rant, say or do something constructive. I don't give a f*ck what the americans do, say or think, but they have the most power in this world whether you like it or not and if the oppressed people of this world are ever going to be free, then it will only ever be done with the help of the americans. I have to teach my daughters that violence is wrong, very wrong and it should never be used to solve a problem. It is only acceptable in certain circumstances and they are when you have to use violence to defend yourself, or if you have to use violence to prevent others from using violence against others. sometimes violence is a neccessary evil, sometimes violence to prevent violence is the only means, sometimes human rights are not the most important consideration in a situation.

example - recently this week there have been many incidents of knife crime. what if you had the power to prevent these innocent deaths by killing the people that wield the knife. would you do it or would you stand back and watch the sensless death. what if you had the power to prevent every knife crime ever, but that also meant that some innocent people would also be killed. would you take that chance? I would, if it meant that children of the future would never have to fear attack again, ever.

now answer me this if as you imply you are vehemently against torture of innocent people, violation of human rights and the massacre innocent people, do you think that some kind of force should have been used in Rwanda?

[medibot]

I think the issue that a lot of people have with America is the near farcical way who is in charge of the power is decided. Religion, oil, money and the general interests of the current president seem to and probably have far more to do with it than sits well with most people. There a lot of very intelligent, open minded, sensible people in America, but their public image is of a thick as pig sh*t president leading a bunch of violent fundamentalists. Not strictly true but i find it very hard to get my head past the fact something i feel is so ridiculous before i can sit back and be objective about things like DJ's been.

Mind you, i am so out of touch with Iraq and all the corruption stories in America, mainly as i am so bored of them, that i am just not in the situation to actually argue about it properly cos i've not got a clue beyond a few basic facts. Fortunately i'm not leading a country...

[coops]

What DJ said.

The only caveat I would put on it is that America are very selective about the tyrants they decide to oppose.

[Sultan of Cannock- SRFC]

From as far back as i can remember it has always been fashionable to knock the Americans, especially when there is a Republican in the White House, due to many in the media being left-leaning. Imagine if Bush had got up to half of what Clinton did?

The situation arose because of the indecisiveness of the United Nations. The first Gulf War should have been taken it's conclusion with Saddam being brought to book at The Hague. This mistake made, various vested interests in that organisation which made money from the "oil for food" programme plus American indolence while we had 8 years of Whitewater, Clinton in Northern Ireland trying to ingratiate himself with the Irish vote at home and "Ah did not have sex with that woman." just allowed things to drift and Saddam to tighten his grip.

With hindsight, the biggest mistake was to allow the Iraqi Army to dissolve after the war. Had it been kept together, disciplined and re-trained, we could have been out of there by now.

On the positive side, the invasion reversed the genocide caused by Saddam in the south of the country where he cut off water supplies to the " Marsh Arabs", drying out their lands and destroying their homes. It also made Gadaffi and (to a lesser extent) the North Koreans think again.

We've helped Iraq in that we've got rid of Saddam and given them a framework to govern themselves, but they'll always hate an occupying force from another country being on their soil. There are a lot of scores to be settled there one way or another before they finally settle down and they'll kill each other for a while yet regardless of whether our boys are in the middle or not.

Time to let them sort themselves out now...

[frankiegth]

I've always been against our involvement in Iraq.

It's all about oil and everything connected with it. why we had to go in there hanging onthe Americans coat tails I don't know. I said at the time it's very easy to get involved in a war not so easy to get out of one. Vietnam a prime example.

There have been loads of points made which we will all have to agree to disagree on. But IMO our forces have been there three years too long already.

Perhaps all the turmoil that is going off there now may prove the point that the Iraqis need ruling with an iron fist because it seems to me the different factions are just not going to get on.

On political expediency. Can you remember when the people of Nicaragua legally and legitimately in fair and open elections elected a government of left wing persuasion. Commander in chief president Reagan set about undermining the govornment and funded a guirillar war because the Americans didn't want communism on their doorstep.

God bless America bastion of democracy. As long as you agree with them.

[DJhinckley]

if all you want to do is agree to disagree then why post at all?

if you want to disagree, tell me what point and why and we'll take it from there...

[frankiegth]

The reason I say agree to diagree is 'cos me and you will never agree on some things.

If you were to transpose world politics into a "playground" situation, over simplication I admit. The Americans would be the biggest gang with all the weapons they want. So they are able to stick the boot into whoever they want when they want if a situation don't suit them.

You rais the issue of Rwanda. I suggest if that nation was of any political/financial interest to the U.S. there would've been a lot more "interest" from the west, no doubt with GB committing men there.

What about Zimbabwa? never mind going to war against a ruthless dictator, we still play cricket with 'em.

Politicians are not worth a wank mi duck, they all piss in the same "self interest pot".

Ilook forward to seeing you next season we really must share a pint together.

Seriously.

[DJhinckley]

djhinckley said:

People tend to get wrapped up in the Anti-American thing of it all, when in fact they should be asking themselves why doesn't the country with the greatest power use that power to stop every oppressor and every murdering dictator in this world.

There should never ever be another Rwanda, millions died and the whole world looked away, if we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later.

which brings me back nicely to my original point. There is a long line of people queing up to lay into the Yanks for what they have done in Iraq, but I do not think they have done enough.

I think, as nations that hold the power, we do not do enough around the world to protect those that cannot protect themselves. You were against our involment in Iraq because of the motives behind the action? It's obvious why the Americans got involved in Iraq, that doesn't bother me, as the by product of americas greed is the removal of a dictator and murderer. I don't care why they did it, just that it was done. How leaders of the 'big 8' countries can hold their heads high knowing that they let Rwanda pass by is what angers me.

Events still taking place in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Nigeria, Uganda and even Rwanda (yes still!) should be highlighted and tackled, not because of finance or reward, but because we are human beings. The UN are becoming the League of Nations and unless they are prepared to fight back then they will become as ignored as the LoN was. What would the world be like today if the LoN had actually bothered to stand up to Hitler? We shall never know, but what we do know is the consequences of the LoN only appeasing the dictator.