Printable View
An estimated total spend by the coalition forces of $500,000,000,000, the loss of more than 35,000 civilian lives, as well as several thousand coalition troops killed, not to mention the countless thousands who will suffer from injuries or post traumatic stress perhaps for the rest of their lives and I have one simple question.
What has the illegal attack on Iraq by the American lead coalition actually achieved?
Good question. It will be interesting to see the answers of those that were lecturing us on the WMD's and Osama four years ago :sQuote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
4 years on.... and STILL people bring this topic up.... :z
The topic has been raised because it's four years since the war began, and people (civilians and military) are still being killed in huge numbers on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattroporte
Unsurprisingly, it's a bit of a hot topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
What, but forhget th African nations where civilians are still being killed in their thousands after 20years??? Why isn't that a hot topic?
The fact that it's less high profile perhaps? In this country the Iraq war gets greater coverage, for obvious reasons. If you want to start a thread about Robert Mugabe then go ahead. I don't see why we can't discuss both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattroporte
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
OK that's fair enough... :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Got rid of a certain S. Hussein.
Made the oil companies dance for joy....
The oil companies, and the military contractors :sQuote:
Originally Posted by Quattroporte
The negatives are obvious, as you clearly point out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
There are a couple of positives, however small they may seem in comparison.
One, there is one less dictator on the planet. This has to be a good thing. Ofcourse, tens-of-thousands of people dying to achieve this goal leaves it a somewhat hollow victory.
Two, I'm sure the Kuwaiti's are pretty happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. He invaded them once and I'm sure they were pretty nervous about it happening again.
Wars are terrible things. Unfortunately, we humans are stunningly good and making them happen. Curse of the species I suppose. It would be nice to think that we could learn from the past. Doesn't happen too often, however.
I think there's a pretty good chance that the last two humans on earth would try to kill each other. Maybe the last one standing will finally understand the futility of it all.
The death of Saddam Hussein is one thing that has been achieved, but according to a report I was reading recently, this could have happened in the original 1991 attack when a small group of SAS soldiers was despatched to 'take him out' and could have achieved their objective easily but were told not to proceed.
Yes, it does have to be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
However, aren't we now just looking at another dictator in a posh suit in the shape of Bush? He's simply gotten rid of a nasty bit of work and put himself pretty much in his place. Has the killing slowed down this past four years?
It's going to take a lot longer than four years to convince me this war was for the good of all people, not just a few.
4 years on and i still wish our troops all the luck in the world regardless of whether they should be there or not.
I recall this study causing some controversy a few months ago...
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...iraq_2006.html
"...deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003, ..."
No we are not. The US President is democratically elected and has a maximum term of 8 years. A dictator holds power by force and is ruler for life. Look at Castro in Cuba. He's been in power for decades and now that he is nearing the end of his life he simply hands power over to his brother. The people of Cuba have absolutely no say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
The same was true of Iraq. The only way Saddam was leaving power was in a pine box. He would either be taken out (as was the case) or he would die an old dictator leaving power to his sons.
You can't even begin to compare the leaders of true democracies to dictators.
That's open to debate given the problems of the voting system the first time Dubya got voted in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Tbh, the invasion of Kuwait is very much a small and insignificant story in my opinion. There is alot that most people don't know about the story up until Kuwait's invasion. The two countries had a long history of disagreements and tense relations before the invasion occured, and i'm not even convinced Saddaam wanted to invade Kuwait. My understanding is that Iraq just wanted some concessions, and for Kuwait to end it's slant drilling. Not to mention Kuwait was taking well over their OPEC oil quota. Kuwait was pissing alot of countries off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Iraq has been divided in all it's history (you can blame the Brits for that), so maybe a dictator was necessary to keep it together. In fact, that's the reason George senior didn't go after Hussein. Obviously not very good communication within that family, because George W certainly didn't take his advice.
I'm not a political animal and even less of an authority on US foreign policy so I could be way off beam here but I've always been of the opinion that this little adventure bears all the hallmarks of "unfinished business" whereupon George Jr has been hellbent on completing the task that his old man baulked at in 1991 regardless of just cause or legitimacy.
Irrespective of motive the stark facts are that the entire episode has resulted in one of the most tragic episodes in the turbulent history of the Middle East.
Once again it's the hapless civilian population that bears the brunt of mindless, futile aggression and whenever I see the almost daily news reports of further atrocities with the accompanying footage of the broken bodies of women and small children it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach to be honest with you.
Yes, it's similar to the former Yugoslavia. Communism and Tito held it together, once they were gone, the whole thing collapsed. Saddam might have been somewhat biased towards the Sunni because of family ties, but he was religiously moderate compared to many of those trying to gain power now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schultz
Share holders in Halliburton would be very happy 4 years on. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the $500,000,000,000 went into their pockets!!!!
We are waiting for Bush and Blair to stand for war crimes against humanity, lying and not giving a toss who or how many people have died in a war that they had no right to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattroporte
Saddam was dealt with, if only the 2 stooges could now be dealt with.
I see what you mean, but looking at here and now it appears to be a case of one dictator taking over from another. The fact that it won't last forever isn't much consolation to the dead ...... and who's to say what will follow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Dead is dead, voted for or not :(
Bush wanted to finish what his father couldnt, unfortunately Bliar got dragged along like a puppy dog. The fact is that neither of them are out there in the front line dying for these 2 halfwits, it is the ordinary people that signed up into the army to defend their countries that are dying, they never signed up to defend Bush's oil.
The scottish people withh be sending a wee message to Bliar in the scottish elections by booting his party out of Scotland, we have lost far too many boys in this war. Bring then home NOW
In a recent opinion poll only 30% of the people questioned supported the war, compared to more than 65% at the beginning of the attacks. It also found big variations in regional support levels with the lowest being the South East of England at 18% but the highest being Scotland where the poll results showed 42% still supported the illegal invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidy_fan
The electoral college elects the USA president.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian959
Funny how the Dawa party is the main party in a 'democratic Iraq" when during Gulf War 1, The Dawa-ists were branded terrorists.
Excuse me for picking the through your post, but I reckon Hazel has a point. The election of the US President may be democratic, but that doesn't matter much if you're from Iraq. What choice are these people really getting with their "liberation"? Sure, things may change for iraqis, but that depends on the whims of US citizens. At the moment Bush is a democratically elected president in the USA, but not in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Bringing the troops home now would almost certainly send Iraq into all out civil war. It would be more immoral to exit Iraq now after we helped put them is this mess, we need to sort it out before we leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidy_fan
I've always thought it ironic that Bush Snr had the chance to take coalition forces all the way to Baghdad but decided not too as he was advised they'd get bogged down for years helping sort out the mess in the ensuing sectarian scramble.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Shame Jnr didn't take heed of the same advice really..
Tell that to the African American parties who's voters were stuck off the voting roll to guarantee Bush won the election :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by SOD
Gore won the election and Bush stole it. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for the reasons and evidence why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
I read the actual questions in an Iraq poll (perhaps not the one you are mentioning though) and the wording left me saying yes when I'm against the war :mark:
It said something like "Do you agree that the US and UK led invasions of Iraq have helped aid safety and downgraded the threat from SH for the people of that country?"
Talk about a loaded question :s
I couldn't answer that question. I'd have to say YES, the invasions have downgraded the threat from SH but they have NOT helped aid safety for the people of Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
That's a lot of money that could have helped towards some of the more pressing issues/problems we're facing now... :s
Yet the whole Iran capturing British navy personnel thing, comes as a shock.
But still, all money spent helps the economy, in some way or another.
Think of all the money we have made securing Iraq's oil :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebee
What a rediculous question. Of course Saddam's less of a threat now: he's dead!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Whether that's improved safety and security in Iraq is a completely different kettle of fish...
Of course, just imagine all the new hummers & SUVs bought by military contractors ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Here's what the new Iraqi police do on their spare time:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261864,00.html
Enraged Policemen Go on Revenge Killing Spree in Northern Iraqi Town
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
BAGHDAD — Off-duty Shiite policemen enraged by massive bombings in the northern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing at least 45 men, police and hospital officials said.
The policemen began roaming the town's Sunni neighborhoods on foot early in the morning, shooting at Sunni residents and homes.
.
One less dictator and one more martyrQuote:
Originally Posted by Hawkmoon
Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Plus of course the little fact that the whole electoral collage system is based on counting a black man's voice less important than a white man.
BUT, we are going off topic!
On the face of it, that makes sense - but the west has been interfering with middle east politics for centuries & every time we somehow manage to make it worse; lest we forget that Bin Laden et al were actually trained/financed by us [not U.S. - the west as a whole] when they were Russia's enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
We have proven our incompetency enough - if the people want change, they will revolt but it has to be THEIR choice.