Now we have come out of Iraq it all seems to have gone to **** so where all our young soldiers died, should we just have left Saddam in charge when all the ***** were under control.

 

Yep should have left him to it, but that's not good for business is it.

 

Yes, but they had weapons of mass destruction so we had to go in, right?

 

And Mr Blair still insists on being paid millions for his invaluable advice.....


At least George junior had the good grace to **** off out of public life

 

I wonder how this episode will be judged in a hundred years.

 

If there was any justice in the world, Tony Blair would be parachuted into Mosul - on his own, and asked in his capacity as the middle east peace envoy, to sort this fvcking **** out


And he would only be collected when he did, or more probably, simply to collect his body

 

In the build-up to the Iraq war, the UK and the US used Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” to justify their decision to invade the country.

What were the real reasons for the war? What were the costs and benefits from the UK and US points of view?

Control of Iraq’s oil maybe??? Iraq possesses more than 65% of the world’s known oil reserves.

 

Wait till you see the chaos in Afghanistan in a few years time, will make Iraq look like a kid's spat in comparison.

Oh and Libya is in a bit of a mess too. Basiclaly anywhere we and our US allies have been has ended up worse than it was before!

 

You can't fix stoopid Applies universally from individuals to entire countries

 

Iraq may arguably be more stable post conflict, however the price in my opinion was too great.

Thousands of coalition troops dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, to overthrow a dictator and estabish a puppet government whose only real chance of survival requires continual propping up from the UK / US.

Nations should go to war only for a just cause and when they believe the good they hope to achieve will be outweighed by the terrors of combat and the inevitable innocent casualties.

 

Really, more stable!!!

There is carnage there on a daily basis - data for the last two days

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Tuesday 10 June: 50 killed
Baquba: 31 killed at funeral, 1 professor killed by gunfire.
Baghdad: 11 killed by IEDs.
Falluja: 2 by shelling.
Kirkuk: 1 body.
Ratba: 1 by car bomb.
Samarra: 1 body.
Amiriyat al-Falluja: 1 Sahwa member by suicide car bomber.
Muqdadiya: 1 gunfire.
JUNE CASUALTIES SO FAR: 584 CIVILIANS KILLED.

Monday 9 June: 69 killed
Tuz Khurmato: 30 killed by car bombs.
Baghdad: 14 by IEDs, gunfire.
Garma: 10 by shelling.
Ramadi: 8 by bombs, gunfire.
Falluja: 2 by shelling.
Kanaan: 2 policemen by gunfire.
Baquba: 1 by gunfire.
Buhriz: 1 policeman in clashes.
Kirkuk: 1 body.

JUNE CASUALTIES SO FAR: 534 CIVILIANS KILLED.

 

Yes.

We should have never gone into Iraq, it is to our eternal shame that we did.
And to make Blair ME PE is like making Gary Glitter head of Save the Children.

 

There was no plan to deal with the country after Saddam was booted out. Hence the chaos.

I think these countries will only survive in relative peace if there is a benign dictator in charge. They are not cut out for Western democracy.

dl

 

Yaay gotta love lizard lick towing

 

What an excellent idea ! ,,, although he is just that slick there is a fair chance he would talk his way out of it and probably earn some money doing speeches while hes there as well as a new job as representative for their human rights

 

See we should have left Saddam to it as he never killed anywhere near that number, and while I am slightly taking the pee I am still serious.

 

They didn't understand the culture there and the fact that the place needed an iron fisted dictator to keep order and make everything function.

 

I've got no issue with regime change if it's needed (Iraq and Afghanistan), but it seems that if we're going to do that then we need to do it right. There needs to be a recognition by the UN and supported by all. With a proper framework in place for achieving it and giving the country a long term future. If that means being policed/protected by external components for years then so be it.

Seems that at the moment we either do it half arsed and leave the place a failing state, or we sit back in doing nothing (Syria), and that's doesn't work either.

With the world being such a small place now I think it's acceptable to police it globally. Granted I don't have the specifics on how this would work, but I think the principle of not policing these places when the start to take a dive is wrong.

 

With respect a lot of flaws in those thoughts. Regime change - OK but there is rarely agreement on this. Syria being a classic case where Russia wants to keep Assad and rest of the world doesn't. It might actually be better to keep Assad and keep out the religious fanatics and just try to keep a lid on the regime's worst excesses?

I would say that getting rid of Mugabe was a no brainer but the West failed miserably, perhaps because there was nothing in it for them and Mugabe played the race card so well.

What a mess the world is in. Bring back John Lennon

dl

 

here is a good factoid

The world's wealthiest people aren't known for travelling by bus, but if they fancied a change of scene then the richest 85 people on the globe – who between them control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population put together – could squeeze onto a single double-decker bus

 

Is it me, or is there a connection between the discovery of Shale Gas/Oil and the withdrawal from Iraq

 

If you add the next 200 richest people to your 85 it apparently works out as half of the worlds total wealth being controlled by less than 300 people.

Mind boggling.

But there are no conspiracies.