Iraq.Worse than before.
11 June 2014, 06:27 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq.Worse than before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27800319
What a suprise.Nobody saw this coming.
Well done to all the politicians involved.Give yourselves a great big pat on the back & a pay rise.
Pitiful waste of life.
Still it's better than getting nuked,biologically & chemically attacked by Sadam with only 45 minutes warning.
What a suprise.Nobody saw this coming.
Well done to all the politicians involved.Give yourselves a great big pat on the back & a pay rise.
Pitiful waste of life.
Still it's better than getting nuked,biologically & chemically attacked by Sadam with only 45 minutes warning.
11 June 2014, 10:30 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Enginetuner.co.uk Plymouth Dyno Dynamics RR Engine machining and building EcuTek SimTek mapping
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about Sunnys and ****es. They've been killing each other for centuries. Come away, there's nothing new to see.
Trending Topics
11 June 2014, 11:28 PM
#8
I've got a mate working 30 miles away from Mosul. He says his main concern is that the checkpoint on the road to Erbil will delay them getting to the bar every night. They are also running a bet that if their mess hall gets blown up whether more people would be happy or disappointed.
Joking aside though if they were worried for his safety he'd be out if there quick sharp.
Joking aside though if they were worried for his safety he'd be out if there quick sharp.
its not simple people.
12 June 2014, 03:30 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
I can only see this going one way and that's the US using aerial attacks. This has gathered so much pace and taken over so much of Northern Iraq that Baghdad is seriously under threat now which in turn threatens the oil fields in the South and there is no way the US is going to let them get that far.
12 June 2014, 03:42 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 June 2014, 07:23 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Grantham
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only see this going one way and that's the US using aerial attacks. This has gathered so much pace and taken over so much of Northern Iraq that Baghdad is seriously under threat now which in turn threatens the oil fields in the South and there is no way the US is going to let them get that far.
12 June 2014, 10:16 PM
#17
Sadam had to be stopped, he also contributed to the invasion it suited him to let the west think he had WMDs or was well on the road to developing them.
If he had ever got control of them we would have had real problems.
If it turns into a civil war it won't be much different to how it was before.
If he had ever got control of them we would have had real problems.
If it turns into a civil war it won't be much different to how it was before.
12 June 2014, 10:44 PM
#19
Sadam wanted the west to think he had WMDs don't you remember all the aggro with NATO weapon inspectors not being allowed to go to certain sites.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
Last edited by Scrappy9; 12 June 2014 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Correction
12 June 2014, 11:14 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Sadam wanted the west to think he had WMDs don't you remember all the aggro with NATO weapon inspectors not being allowed to go to certain sites.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
13 June 2014, 06:19 AM
#22
Sadam wanted the west to think he had WMDs don't you remember all the aggro with NATO weapon inspectors not being allowed to go to certain sites.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
He showed what he was like when he invaded Kuwait, IMO the west should have removed him then.
Then there was firing scuds at Israel trying to stir up the whole region into a war, which luckily didn't work.
Chemical weapons against l think it was the Kurds in northern Iraq, killing hundreds if not thousands the man was a lunatic, if he had ever actually gotten hold of WMDs l doubt anyone would have been safe.
We should have left them all to it, historically they've been fighting each other for centuries in that region, even I know that and i'm not interested and have done zero research on the matter. We are the ones that sold him all his weapons so knew exactly what he had and what he was capable of. He was allowed to invade kuwait to give US (oops there it is again) control / a reason to move into the region.
His biggest crime was that he wasn't smart enough to spot the end game in time because his ego and pride got the better of him, by the time he realised what was really going on it was too late because he'd already played into the puppet masters hands, so all he could do was keep rattling his sabre and threaten the lives of the relatives of something like 70% (not sure on exact numbers but no doubt someone will correct me) of the US congress or Israel as it's more commonly known.
There is a **** sight more going on in the world than you or I are privy too, but one thing you can be sure of is us and the US ain't no knights in shining armour or are we.
Last edited by ditchmyster; 13 June 2014 at 06:50 AM.
13 June 2014, 06:55 AM
#23
Never once suggested the USA were knights in shining armour.
The west have been messing around backing one side then the other for years, a lot of western countries sold arms to Iraq as did the Russians, especially to wage war with Iran.
Sadam tried to buy nuclear capability in the 70s from France who refused to sell but did help them to build a nuclear reactor, which Israel then bombed.
Am under no illusions that there is a load of underhand stuff we will never know about, but that's true of things that go on in this country as well.
Personally as harsh as it may sound, l would rather have Iraq fighting a civil war with conventional weapons than the possibility that Sadam was in charge and that he might have or is on the way to nuclear weapons
The west have been messing around backing one side then the other for years, a lot of western countries sold arms to Iraq as did the Russians, especially to wage war with Iran.
Sadam tried to buy nuclear capability in the 70s from France who refused to sell but did help them to build a nuclear reactor, which Israel then bombed.
Am under no illusions that there is a load of underhand stuff we will never know about, but that's true of things that go on in this country as well.
Personally as harsh as it may sound, l would rather have Iraq fighting a civil war with conventional weapons than the possibility that Sadam was in charge and that he might have or is on the way to nuclear weapons
13 June 2014, 08:05 AM
#24
The Knights in shining armour was a bit of an historical reference point, (for those that don't get it. Thought it was quite obvious myself but hey ho)
My problem with all of this now that it's a matter of historical record, is there was a lot of If-ing in all of this 'War on WMD' and it's been proven to be a load of bollax, cost un-told lives and harm / retaliation throughout the world and we're still no further forward and appear to have learnt nothing be-cause people are once again advocating we go back in and for what? To save the people of Iraq and the rest of the world from a tyrannical dictator? No! Once again we come back to the real reason OIL and the protection/control of the supply.
As for the people of Iraq, they were actually better off under Saddam as it turns out. We could of dealt with him differently and saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but that option was only played lip service to because we would not have gained control of the oil under any other less destructive scenario.
Us the US and others no doubt also had a couple of other benefits out of the wars, we and they got the opportunity to dispose of some almost out of date costly to de-commission bombs and then the contracts to rebuild the place and take even more of the money generated by the oil from the very people we were supposed to be helping.
When will people learn.
My problem with all of this now that it's a matter of historical record, is there was a lot of If-ing in all of this 'War on WMD' and it's been proven to be a load of bollax, cost un-told lives and harm / retaliation throughout the world and we're still no further forward and appear to have learnt nothing be-cause people are once again advocating we go back in and for what? To save the people of Iraq and the rest of the world from a tyrannical dictator? No! Once again we come back to the real reason OIL and the protection/control of the supply.
As for the people of Iraq, they were actually better off under Saddam as it turns out.
We could of dealt with him differently and saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but that option was only played lip service to because we would not have gained control of the oil under any other less destructive scenario. Us the US and others no doubt also had a couple of other benefits out of the wars, we and they got the opportunity to dispose of some almost out of date costly to de-commission bombs and then the contracts to rebuild the place and take even more of the money generated by the oil from the very people we were supposed to be helping.
When will people learn.
13 June 2014, 09:26 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one would argue that Saddam Hussein was a good guy, he did commit war crimes, used chemical weapons against his own people, tortured prisoners, and tried to exterminate the Kurds, among other atrocities.
But at the same time, his heavy hand was able to keep the country under control. He kept peace between the Sunnis and Shias, while providing a counterbalance to Iran.
He also served as a consistent leader in a region of the world where stability is a rare thing. Under Saddams rule, Iraq was relatively peaceful and safe.
Now, a full decade after he was removed, Iran is an absolute mess, the country's religious groups are fighting among themselves,its political system is failing,a dozen candidates for political office have been assassinated in the last ten years, hundreds of innocents are being killed weekly. The UK and US have left the country in a state of disrepair, but what do we care as it was only ever about the oil in the first instance. Just as Afghan is only about the poppy fields.
But at the same time, his heavy hand was able to keep the country under control. He kept peace between the Sunnis and Shias, while providing a counterbalance to Iran.
He also served as a consistent leader in a region of the world where stability is a rare thing. Under Saddams rule, Iraq was relatively peaceful and safe.
Now, a full decade after he was removed, Iran is an absolute mess, the country's religious groups are fighting among themselves,its political system is failing,a dozen candidates for political office have been assassinated in the last ten years, hundreds of innocents are being killed weekly. The UK and US have left the country in a state of disrepair, but what do we care as it was only ever about the oil in the first instance. Just as Afghan is only about the poppy fields.
Last edited by stipete75; 13 June 2014 at 09:28 AM.
13 June 2014, 09:34 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
13 June 2014, 10:24 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
As for the first Gulf War Saddam didn't just invade Kuwait because he felt like it. The Kuwaitis (who are not a very nice nation by most accounts - see how they treat 'house maids' a modern day slavery although I think it's par for the course for the majority of rich Arab nations) p!ssed Saddam off over numerous issues such as nicking his oil through slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and then overproducing on oil quotas driving down the price and affecting Saddam's oil revenue. He had enough of that and thought the only way to deal with it was annex Kuwait into Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
So the first time round was to drive Saddam back out of Kuwait and there was no real agenda at that time to remove him from power. However because the US did what they did in driving him out of Kuwait he then decided to become more of a thorn in the side of the US and start ramping up provocation of Israel and lead everyone on that he was in possession of medium/long range missiles that could target the West and not just Israel. With his history of chemical weapon attacks on his own people there was every reason to believe if (and it was a very big if) he did posses those missiles that they would be laden with chemical weapons and not conventional warheads. He also wanted to give the impression he was supporting Al-Qaeda and that those supposed missiles could be supplied to them, basically anything that was going to really wind the US up as pay back for stopping him annexing Kuwait.
He clearly didn't think that all his bluff and bluster to wind up the US and the West up was going to end the way it did with them coming to get him. A bit like Bin Laden, but that's a whole bigger story.
The one thing the US needs to learn is not get into bed with these nutters in the first place, or if they do not to then cross them afterwards, especially the way they did with Bin Laden which then lead to creating the World's worst terrorist organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
So the first time round was to drive Saddam back out of Kuwait and there was no real agenda at that time to remove him from power. However because the US did what they did in driving him out of Kuwait he then decided to become more of a thorn in the side of the US and start ramping up provocation of Israel and lead everyone on that he was in possession of medium/long range missiles that could target the West and not just Israel. With his history of chemical weapon attacks on his own people there was every reason to believe if (and it was a very big if) he did posses those missiles that they would be laden with chemical weapons and not conventional warheads. He also wanted to give the impression he was supporting Al-Qaeda and that those supposed missiles could be supplied to them, basically anything that was going to really wind the US up as pay back for stopping him annexing Kuwait.
He clearly didn't think that all his bluff and bluster to wind up the US and the West up was going to end the way it did with them coming to get him. A bit like Bin Laden, but that's a whole bigger story.
The one thing the US needs to learn is not get into bed with these nutters in the first place, or if they do not to then cross them afterwards, especially the way they did with Bin Laden which then lead to creating the World's worst terrorist organisation.
Last edited by An0n0m0us; 13 June 2014 at 10:28 AM.
13 June 2014, 10:32 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: I'll check my gps
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only see this going one way and that's the US using aerial attacks. This has gathered so much pace and taken over so much of Northern Iraq that Baghdad is seriously under threat now which in turn threatens the oil fields in the South and there is no way the US is going to let them get that far.
Have just seen (on the wright stuff) that drones have been deployed.
13 June 2014, 10:40 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
It was obviously going to happen, there is no other way to deal with them without sending in ground troops and there is no time for that sort of deployment from afar. However aerial bombardment can be organised and carried out in a matter of hours through satellite imagery and high altitude reconnaissance. The militants are now in control of ex US military hardware abandoned by the Iraqi forces in the North. That can't be left alone and the US will destroy every last bit of it they can find in the hands of those militants.