RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riley Dove,
Your allusion to your voting rights during your exercise in the 1990's and the democratic rights you mentioned in an earlier mail is utter nonsense and I suspect you well know it. We all vote, RD, but we all do not pick and choose which conflict we will attend...your argument is unconnected and unsound I'm afraid.
You clearly miss amy point apart from your own. I do not think anyone has even suggested yjat we cannot question the rights and wrongs of what it does; this applies in the armed services as well because one has the duty not to act on illegal orders...he does not have the right to refuse to go to Iraq and perform his duty attending the sick and wounded. And please, do stop banging on about the blood given to defend the rights we have...it's beginning to sound like a cliche.
''Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball
of chalk?'' The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won, and nobody has been denying that...I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime but then nor were the Shiites or anyone else who opposed the man...everybody seems to know that, so what is your point?
Re the oil ministry building not being bombed...so what?
You still haven't answered my questions about the historical society you, as an historian, belong to, nor the qualifications you would have as an historian to come to the conclusions you do. I suspect, from your argument thus far that you have an interest in such things. Certainly you are extremely biased and lack of objectivity is very much in evidence...basically, a load of tosh!
I suspect a wind-up!
Thank you once again.
NC43
Your allusion to your voting rights during your exercise in the 1990's and the democratic rights you mentioned in an earlier mail is utter nonsense and I suspect you well know it. We all vote, RD, but we all do not pick and choose which conflict we will attend...your argument is unconnected and unsound I'm afraid.
You clearly miss amy point apart from your own. I do not think anyone has even suggested yjat we cannot question the rights and wrongs of what it does; this applies in the armed services as well because one has the duty not to act on illegal orders...he does not have the right to refuse to go to Iraq and perform his duty attending the sick and wounded. And please, do stop banging on about the blood given to defend the rights we have...it's beginning to sound like a cliche.
''Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball
of chalk?'' The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won, and nobody has been denying that...I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime but then nor were the Shiites or anyone else who opposed the man...everybody seems to know that, so what is your point?
Re the oil ministry building not being bombed...so what?
You still haven't answered my questions about the historical society you, as an historian, belong to, nor the qualifications you would have as an historian to come to the conclusions you do. I suspect, from your argument thus far that you have an interest in such things. Certainly you are extremely biased and lack of objectivity is very much in evidence...basically, a load of tosh!
I suspect a wind-up!
Thank you once again.
NC43
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Mr Dove,
Oh Lord, you were on exercise in the 1990's - congratulations and well done for that.
Well (without wishing to sound like a sketch from Monty Python), when I was on 15 minute standby waiting for the hooter to go off so I could go fly my big yellow egg whisk to pull some unfortunate sod off a mountain or whatever, are you saying that I had the right (democratic or otherwise) to say 'sorry Boss, I'm just off to Elgin to go and vote for another bunch of spineless fools'?? Of course I didn't.
Get a life Man for Gods sake. These are important matters, and comments like yours simply breed this idiotic, foolish and dangerous attitude about PC and other nonesence within the military. That why things are going down hill - idiots like you are actively encouraging others to pull the PC card...... 'Please Sir, the SWO shouted at me!' ...... 'Can I be excused today Sir, its cold outside' heavens above Dove, whats the matter with you?
You were on exercise were you in the 1990's eh? well big deal, so what? what is your point? I would think everyone has been on exercise at sometime. This is NOT an exercise though.
The facts are simple and I think you are wrong and should keep your commenst under wraps. If you think this war is wrong then that is your opinion, but condoning someone who picks and chooses what he will and more importantly WILL NOT do for his service and his country is disgraceful. This is NOT an exercise, this is for real, and the last thing our people in theatre need is someone who they CANNOT rely on, and I suppose that is the thrust of my argumant. My crew and everyone around me know that they can rely on me 100%, unlike your doctor friend, who sadly will never have that label attached to him ever again.
Kind regards to all
TSM
Oh Lord, you were on exercise in the 1990's - congratulations and well done for that.
Well (without wishing to sound like a sketch from Monty Python), when I was on 15 minute standby waiting for the hooter to go off so I could go fly my big yellow egg whisk to pull some unfortunate sod off a mountain or whatever, are you saying that I had the right (democratic or otherwise) to say 'sorry Boss, I'm just off to Elgin to go and vote for another bunch of spineless fools'?? Of course I didn't.
Get a life Man for Gods sake. These are important matters, and comments like yours simply breed this idiotic, foolish and dangerous attitude about PC and other nonesence within the military. That why things are going down hill - idiots like you are actively encouraging others to pull the PC card...... 'Please Sir, the SWO shouted at me!' ...... 'Can I be excused today Sir, its cold outside' heavens above Dove, whats the matter with you?
You were on exercise were you in the 1990's eh? well big deal, so what? what is your point? I would think everyone has been on exercise at sometime. This is NOT an exercise though.
The facts are simple and I think you are wrong and should keep your commenst under wraps. If you think this war is wrong then that is your opinion, but condoning someone who picks and chooses what he will and more importantly WILL NOT do for his service and his country is disgraceful. This is NOT an exercise, this is for real, and the last thing our people in theatre need is someone who they CANNOT rely on, and I suppose that is the thrust of my argumant. My crew and everyone around me know that they can rely on me 100%, unlike your doctor friend, who sadly will never have that label attached to him ever again.
Kind regards to all
TSM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker
With ref to this and your previous comment on failing to predict the insurgency.
I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur. If that is what you believe then you have the same IQ as George W (which has been stated as 87, 90 being the avererage for a child subjected to a poor schooling system). Do you think for one moment they thought "I know we will invade their country and everyone will be happy that we are in there? We will invade and everyone that has been oppressed for 30 years wont bother wanting retribution?"
We HAVE NOT won anything. It is a mess. Before we were there the iraqis did not have 50-100 people dying everyday. We did not have TWO THOUSAND dead US troops plus the rest of our UK and coilition forces troops who have died. And the torture by iraqi on fellow iraqi is still going on. Please explain what you think we have won???
As for the fact that you say
Thats because they were not there. They had no interest in Iraq, they wanted the USA. 16 of the 19 bombers on 9/11 came from Saudi, NON were from Iraq, nor did they live in Iraq.
''Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball of chalk?'' The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won, and nobody has been denying that...I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime "
I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur. If that is what you believe then you have the same IQ as George W (which has been stated as 87, 90 being the avererage for a child subjected to a poor schooling system). Do you think for one moment they thought "I know we will invade their country and everyone will be happy that we are in there? We will invade and everyone that has been oppressed for 30 years wont bother wanting retribution?"
The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won,
As for the fact that you say
I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we were there the iraqis did not have 50-100 people dying everyday. We did not have TWO THOUSAND dead US troops plus the rest of our UK and coilition forces troops who have died.
(or whatever the number is)
Tiggsy,
You know naught of what you speak when you suggest Nutcracker is without mental dexterity. I know him to be anything but a dull third grader....thus such a suggestion quickly puts your qualifications to judge the merits of a post...well it does make one wonder how much credibility to give you.
Nuts is one of the most, if not the most articulate persons I have had the pleasure to know. He has the ability to construct a logical argument as well as anyone I have dealt with. Those who cross foils with him have more times than not, wound up oozing hot air.
If you will pause a moment and reconsider history, I do believe you will find the Coalition Forces soundly defeated the Iraqi Government forces in a record setting movement of troops and equipment from Kuwait to Baghdad. That was no small feat of arms.
That same review of history will also show there was a period of time during which the insurgency and influx of foreign terrorists/jihadists was not able to mobilize suffiecient forces to be effective in attacking Coalition, Iraqi, and Iraqi civilain targets.
History will show the current period of hostile action by the insurgents/foreign terrorists/jihadists was a failure and in time will be defeated. The on-going vote by millions of Iraqi's and the growing participation of Sunni's in the political process is a bright indicator of the progress being made.
Rome wasn't made in a day...nor will Iraq be.
WarGames are just that....games. They do not forecast actual events any more than the existence of this wonderful Orb we inhabit can be described by math and physics.
As to Bush having an 87-90 IQ....just what source of information do you base that statement upon?
It is of no matter if he is a village idiot or Einsteins teacher...these decisions are made by more than one Man alone. George Bush may have the executive priviledge/responsibility/liability of making the final decision, however he did it with massive input from others. We know now that intelligence reports from many different sources were wrong....and had been for years. That is not attributable to Bush alone....multiple governments in many countries own a piece of that debacle.
The clamour over the WMD, Connection to Al Qaeda, and all the other trivial issues thrown into the air by the opponents of Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, the United States, and Freedom...ignore the reality of the situation.
The Iraqi people are free, free to vote, free to live their lives and hopefully will be able to do so in Peace, once the insurgency is defeated. The defeat is coming for the insurgency...at some point the Iraqi people shall tire of the car bombers and assassins. When they do....and embrace their new found freedom and all it means....the Insurgency will end. The longterm effect of the Iraqi's having the first democratic government in the Middle East cannot be understated.
Just what price should be paid for freedom?
You know naught of what you speak when you suggest Nutcracker is without mental dexterity. I know him to be anything but a dull third grader....thus such a suggestion quickly puts your qualifications to judge the merits of a post...well it does make one wonder how much credibility to give you.
Nuts is one of the most, if not the most articulate persons I have had the pleasure to know. He has the ability to construct a logical argument as well as anyone I have dealt with. Those who cross foils with him have more times than not, wound up oozing hot air.
If you will pause a moment and reconsider history, I do believe you will find the Coalition Forces soundly defeated the Iraqi Government forces in a record setting movement of troops and equipment from Kuwait to Baghdad. That was no small feat of arms.
That same review of history will also show there was a period of time during which the insurgency and influx of foreign terrorists/jihadists was not able to mobilize suffiecient forces to be effective in attacking Coalition, Iraqi, and Iraqi civilain targets.
History will show the current period of hostile action by the insurgents/foreign terrorists/jihadists was a failure and in time will be defeated. The on-going vote by millions of Iraqi's and the growing participation of Sunni's in the political process is a bright indicator of the progress being made.
Rome wasn't made in a day...nor will Iraq be.
WarGames are just that....games. They do not forecast actual events any more than the existence of this wonderful Orb we inhabit can be described by math and physics.
As to Bush having an 87-90 IQ....just what source of information do you base that statement upon?
It is of no matter if he is a village idiot or Einsteins teacher...these decisions are made by more than one Man alone. George Bush may have the executive priviledge/responsibility/liability of making the final decision, however he did it with massive input from others. We know now that intelligence reports from many different sources were wrong....and had been for years. That is not attributable to Bush alone....multiple governments in many countries own a piece of that debacle.
The clamour over the WMD, Connection to Al Qaeda, and all the other trivial issues thrown into the air by the opponents of Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, the United States, and Freedom...ignore the reality of the situation.
The Iraqi people are free, free to vote, free to live their lives and hopefully will be able to do so in Peace, once the insurgency is defeated. The defeat is coming for the insurgency...at some point the Iraqi people shall tire of the car bombers and assassins. When they do....and embrace their new found freedom and all it means....the Insurgency will end. The longterm effect of the Iraqi's having the first democratic government in the Middle East cannot be understated.
Just what price should be paid for freedom?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
no wish to get into another jousting match with you, as much fun as we both consider it to be.
I am asking the question of NC43 "What have we won??"
your elequent reply does not answer that, nor do i believe your utopian view of the situation as it will pan out in the ME is representative of what will prove to be the true outcome. Save the text of your message and re-read it in 5 years, i will do the same, then lets have a hat eating competition.
no wish to get into another jousting match with you, as much fun as we both consider it to be.
I am asking the question of NC43 "What have we won??"
your elequent reply does not answer that, nor do i believe your utopian view of the situation as it will pan out in the ME is representative of what will prove to be the true outcome. Save the text of your message and re-read it in 5 years, i will do the same, then lets have a hat eating competition.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinging Monkey - I think if you examine my posts you will actually see that have have not condoned the doctor taking the action he has in anyway. What I have said is that he is entitled to question his orders and the legitamacy of them. It is not people like me questioning action like this that is in any way
harming the Armed Forces . Maybe you should examine the actions of your Lords and masters- flimsy evidence - soldiers put on trial for murder when the prosecution cannot even produce a body . Do you not actually think that the people who are pulling the strings are making the armed forces appear less than competent.
The Doctor concerned will get his moment of fame -it's in no way related to anything 'PC' -were the soldiers shot at dawn in WW1 PC? -were servicemen judged to have LMF in WW2 being PC? or indeed objectors to numerous other recent conflicts the same? I think you might well find that PC is nothing to do with it.
As for keeping my comments to myself - well maybe you should remember that the very servicemen you applaud for doing their duty did so so that Iraq could have free speech. Something you don't seem to be able to handle. I am sure you will continue to hate people like me - I can live with that if it means that the Armed Forces don't get blindly lead into a war again.
SASless - the WMD's -Al Qaida et at were the justifications of going to war! Subsequently Bush and Tony have made them trivial issues not the other way round ! The ground war was indeed swift but I think possibly you are taking some of the credit away from the Iraqi generals who were bribed to bury their jets in the desert and ordered the Republican Guard into bombing zones. They were handsomely rewarded with a flight out of Bagdad and new identities in friendly countries.
I would love to think that Iraq will be the first working democracy in the Middle East but surely if we wanted that in the first place we could have started with any number of other states.
For example Saudi Arabia is almost entirely dependent on western military equipment - could we not have put pressure on them years ago to enter democracy if we were than keen on the idea of a 'free' Middle East?
harming the Armed Forces . Maybe you should examine the actions of your Lords and masters- flimsy evidence - soldiers put on trial for murder when the prosecution cannot even produce a body . Do you not actually think that the people who are pulling the strings are making the armed forces appear less than competent.
The Doctor concerned will get his moment of fame -it's in no way related to anything 'PC' -were the soldiers shot at dawn in WW1 PC? -were servicemen judged to have LMF in WW2 being PC? or indeed objectors to numerous other recent conflicts the same? I think you might well find that PC is nothing to do with it.
As for keeping my comments to myself - well maybe you should remember that the very servicemen you applaud for doing their duty did so so that Iraq could have free speech. Something you don't seem to be able to handle. I am sure you will continue to hate people like me - I can live with that if it means that the Armed Forces don't get blindly lead into a war again.
SASless - the WMD's -Al Qaida et at were the justifications of going to war! Subsequently Bush and Tony have made them trivial issues not the other way round ! The ground war was indeed swift but I think possibly you are taking some of the credit away from the Iraqi generals who were bribed to bury their jets in the desert and ordered the Republican Guard into bombing zones. They were handsomely rewarded with a flight out of Bagdad and new identities in friendly countries.
I would love to think that Iraq will be the first working democracy in the Middle East but surely if we wanted that in the first place we could have started with any number of other states.
For example Saudi Arabia is almost entirely dependent on western military equipment - could we not have put pressure on them years ago to enter democracy if we were than keen on the idea of a 'free' Middle East?
Last edited by RileyDove; 13th Dec 2005 at 20:10.
Riley...
No need to bother with hypthethicals....let's deal with reality.
If we bribed the Generals...and won....that is an innovative way of war that worked. The goal of fighting wars is to win....right?
WMD's etc, were all a "part" of the reasons for going to war...let's not forget the UN Resolutions and all of the other reasons. The fact the PR handling of the war has been at best ...."poor"....does not negate the benefit that will come of it.
We started with Afghanistan as I recall....Iraq followed later...Lebanon, Egypt, and other countries are coming along as well. Again, look at the big picture....extend your timeline to beyond this week or the next.
If we look years....decades ahead....we can see better the goal being worth the costs.
If one reviews the past as well....we can see foreign policy failures by the Western governments over the years and usually because we could not project "real" power in the region. We are able to do that now and will be even more capable with the establishment of democratically elected free governments there.
Saudi has its own problems....the House of Saud is getting a bit rickity....at some point the Saudi King will be confronted with a need to accept change in that situation as well.
No need to bother with hypthethicals....let's deal with reality.
If we bribed the Generals...and won....that is an innovative way of war that worked. The goal of fighting wars is to win....right?
WMD's etc, were all a "part" of the reasons for going to war...let's not forget the UN Resolutions and all of the other reasons. The fact the PR handling of the war has been at best ...."poor"....does not negate the benefit that will come of it.
We started with Afghanistan as I recall....Iraq followed later...Lebanon, Egypt, and other countries are coming along as well. Again, look at the big picture....extend your timeline to beyond this week or the next.
If we look years....decades ahead....we can see better the goal being worth the costs.
If one reviews the past as well....we can see foreign policy failures by the Western governments over the years and usually because we could not project "real" power in the region. We are able to do that now and will be even more capable with the establishment of democratically elected free governments there.
Saudi has its own problems....the House of Saud is getting a bit rickity....at some point the Saudi King will be confronted with a need to accept change in that situation as well.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq is an unprecedented strategic disaster which has fuelled the terrorist threat and has detracted from real efforts in Afghanistan to contain narcotics production and terrorism. The Sunni Baathists were a repugnant bunch, but the replacements are shaping up to be just as bad and their Iranian neighbours are looking on with glee.
The political damage will be as great - if not greater - than that which arose from a certain other US venture some 40 years ago, although at that time the UK did not have a deranged prime minister intent on inserting his poodle snout as far up a chimp's rectum as physically possible, spreading lies about WMD etc....rant continues. Perhaps in the 1960s, the memory of the Suez debacle was still relatively fresh.
The political damage will be as great - if not greater - than that which arose from a certain other US venture some 40 years ago, although at that time the UK did not have a deranged prime minister intent on inserting his poodle snout as far up a chimp's rectum as physically possible, spreading lies about WMD etc....rant continues. Perhaps in the 1960s, the memory of the Suez debacle was still relatively fresh.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless - I would like to think that things will get better in the Middle East . However whether it's been the British in Suez or the American's helping to keep Israel supplied with weapons our influence in the past hasn't stopped the Middle East being a melting pot. Maybe how we can work for the future is to try and persuade the countries in the region to spend less on military equipment and more on it's citizens.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Baldock
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Blair should be the one facing a jail stint out of all this mess.
Sending soldiers to fight a 'war' based on a lie is the lowest of the low. I find it insulting for those that are serving and it desecrates those that have fallen for legitimate causes. Then he has the gaul to lay a poppy wreath.
How that sack of s**t sleeps at night I'll never know.
He was warned what would happen and you can rest assured that the 'government' won't look after you once you've done their dirty work.
Iraq will be split into 3 different states and the whole region will be up in smoke within a short period of time.
Thousands of soldiers will have died for nothing, again. The Middle East will be in a far worse state than it was 3 years ago.
Sending soldiers to fight a 'war' based on a lie is the lowest of the low. I find it insulting for those that are serving and it desecrates those that have fallen for legitimate causes. Then he has the gaul to lay a poppy wreath.
How that sack of s**t sleeps at night I'll never know.
He was warned what would happen and you can rest assured that the 'government' won't look after you once you've done their dirty work.
Iraq will be split into 3 different states and the whole region will be up in smoke within a short period of time.
Thousands of soldiers will have died for nothing, again. The Middle East will be in a far worse state than it was 3 years ago.
Paste,
Over a thousand Shia Clerics endorsed the election process and called upon their followers to participate.
Is that not a positive sign?
A recent poll showed over 71% of Iraqi's are "satisfied with their lives".....is that not a positive sign?
Iraq civilians captured and turned over an Al Qaeda terrorist leader the other day....is that not positive sign?
The list goes on....and on....good things are happening....maybe you are not looking for them hard enough.
A famous American humourist once said...." I hope I never wake up to an America as bad as the one the newspapers tell me about."
Will Rogers quote could apply on an international scale I should think.
Over a thousand Shia Clerics endorsed the election process and called upon their followers to participate.
Is that not a positive sign?
A recent poll showed over 71% of Iraqi's are "satisfied with their lives".....is that not a positive sign?
Iraq civilians captured and turned over an Al Qaeda terrorist leader the other day....is that not positive sign?
The list goes on....and on....good things are happening....maybe you are not looking for them hard enough.
A famous American humourist once said...." I hope I never wake up to an America as bad as the one the newspapers tell me about."
Will Rogers quote could apply on an international scale I should think.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Baldock
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the quickest way that they will get rid of the Allied presence.
Once 'we' are gone, each cleric will want a slice of the cake, the country will break down 100%, civil war will break out and the whole region will be more unstable than ever, as predicted before the 'war'.
Stability is getting worse, not better. If you want to talk about stats, see how many US service personnel were killed in the past month.
Ask the UK forces in Basra if the situation is better or worse than 6 months ago.
Do you really think that the insurgants will pack up and go home once the Allied forces leave ?
As ever, the proof will be in the pudding.
The UK led by the US have made another monumental cock up. The war was about Oil and not weapons or people.
Better the Devil you know.
Once 'we' are gone, each cleric will want a slice of the cake, the country will break down 100%, civil war will break out and the whole region will be more unstable than ever, as predicted before the 'war'.
Stability is getting worse, not better. If you want to talk about stats, see how many US service personnel were killed in the past month.
Ask the UK forces in Basra if the situation is better or worse than 6 months ago.
Do you really think that the insurgants will pack up and go home once the Allied forces leave ?
As ever, the proof will be in the pudding.
The UK led by the US have made another monumental cock up. The war was about Oil and not weapons or people.
Better the Devil you know.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs 2.
Thanks for your contribution and your comments.
For a start, neither you nor I are privy to what experts may or may not have said so that side of it is pure speculation based, perhaps on your personal prejudices, and therefore not particularly sound. I should like more evidence before I make such statements. What I actually said was: ‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ (GWB does have an MBA. by the way which is, I suspect, more than do you).
When I said the war had been won I meant it was a victory according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, viz., defeating one’s enemy in battle, or war, and not, unlike yourself, whatever I wanted it to mean. That way one begins to sound like the Mad Hatter at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. The coalition forces were not in any way defeated… I imagine you would agree. If you imagine that institutions and mindsets change immediately on the cessation of hostilities then you are naďve in the extreme. This sort of thing will take years to accomplish. Torture by Iraqi on Iraqi will continue long after we have left just as it did before we intervened. It is the nature of things in that part of the world…it shouldn’t be but it is! As for the Iraqis dying I would suspect that more than 50-100 died on average during Saddam Hussein’s 8000 days in power. ‘’The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power". So do please spare me your inaccurate speculation.
I am aware of the fact that al Qaeda was not in Iraq and I do know they certainly would not have been tolerated there. I am also aware that the 911 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia. You are telling me nothing new. A digression: as we speak the Saudis have called together Muslim scholars and leaders to discuss modernising Islam…something that would never have happened in the normal course of events
It is, indeed, tragic that the US has lost 2000 of its soldiers and we and the rest of the coalition, ours. In the meantime the Pentagon has embraced a fundamental change of policy which calls for the US armed forces to be equally adept the making of peace as they are at the waging of war.
‘’The new course, announced in a Pentagon directive (28 Nov 05), follows widespread criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq, where US forces scored a swift, decisive victory over conventional opponents but found themselves ill-equipped to deal with post-combat chaos and an increasingly effective insurgency.’’ Do you seriously imagine this sort of directive would have been issued if the events occurring at the scale as at this moment had been foreseen? The Pentagon may be many things to many people, but negligent they are not. The directive says that establishing order and security, restoring essential services and meeting the humanitarian needs of the population of a vanquished country were now a “core US military mission.” I imagine you would agree that it is the first time that such activities have been defined as a core function of the US armed forces. In fact ‘’Much of the 11-page policy document reads like a list to address shortcomings laid bare after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing criticism that the United States won the war and is losing the peace’’. This seems to have comprehensively addressed these particular shortfalls, which suggests that they had not been identified before.
Trust you feel better informed.
Thanks again.
NC43
Thanks for your contribution and your comments.
For a start, neither you nor I are privy to what experts may or may not have said so that side of it is pure speculation based, perhaps on your personal prejudices, and therefore not particularly sound. I should like more evidence before I make such statements. What I actually said was: ‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ (GWB does have an MBA. by the way which is, I suspect, more than do you).
When I said the war had been won I meant it was a victory according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, viz., defeating one’s enemy in battle, or war, and not, unlike yourself, whatever I wanted it to mean. That way one begins to sound like the Mad Hatter at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. The coalition forces were not in any way defeated… I imagine you would agree. If you imagine that institutions and mindsets change immediately on the cessation of hostilities then you are naďve in the extreme. This sort of thing will take years to accomplish. Torture by Iraqi on Iraqi will continue long after we have left just as it did before we intervened. It is the nature of things in that part of the world…it shouldn’t be but it is! As for the Iraqis dying I would suspect that more than 50-100 died on average during Saddam Hussein’s 8000 days in power. ‘’The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power". So do please spare me your inaccurate speculation.
I am aware of the fact that al Qaeda was not in Iraq and I do know they certainly would not have been tolerated there. I am also aware that the 911 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia. You are telling me nothing new. A digression: as we speak the Saudis have called together Muslim scholars and leaders to discuss modernising Islam…something that would never have happened in the normal course of events
It is, indeed, tragic that the US has lost 2000 of its soldiers and we and the rest of the coalition, ours. In the meantime the Pentagon has embraced a fundamental change of policy which calls for the US armed forces to be equally adept the making of peace as they are at the waging of war.
‘’The new course, announced in a Pentagon directive (28 Nov 05), follows widespread criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq, where US forces scored a swift, decisive victory over conventional opponents but found themselves ill-equipped to deal with post-combat chaos and an increasingly effective insurgency.’’ Do you seriously imagine this sort of directive would have been issued if the events occurring at the scale as at this moment had been foreseen? The Pentagon may be many things to many people, but negligent they are not. The directive says that establishing order and security, restoring essential services and meeting the humanitarian needs of the population of a vanquished country were now a “core US military mission.” I imagine you would agree that it is the first time that such activities have been defined as a core function of the US armed forces. In fact ‘’Much of the 11-page policy document reads like a list to address shortcomings laid bare after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing criticism that the United States won the war and is losing the peace’’. This seems to have comprehensively addressed these particular shortfalls, which suggests that they had not been identified before.
Trust you feel better informed.
Thanks again.
NC43
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless- What your forgetting is that under Saddam's regime the percentage of people happy with their lives was far higher - admittedly saying that you wern't happy wasn't a good move!
There is plenty of buzz about things getting better - as long as the troops can get out of there as the papers seem to suggest very shortly -I feel sadly that many in the west won't care what happens then.
There is plenty of buzz about things getting better - as long as the troops can get out of there as the papers seem to suggest very shortly -I feel sadly that many in the west won't care what happens then.
Tiggsy,
Since you have gone on record as not wishing to joust with me...and seeing as how Nuts has placed the ball squarely in middle of your court....I do so look forward to your response.
I would suggest I am the much easier opponent....that is why I usually stand back and merely hold Nut's coat for him during these debates.
He rarely joins the argument....but when he does...I do so enjoy it.
As Ross Perot is known to say....I am all ears.
Since you have gone on record as not wishing to joust with me...and seeing as how Nuts has placed the ball squarely in middle of your court....I do so look forward to your response.
I would suggest I am the much easier opponent....that is why I usually stand back and merely hold Nut's coat for him during these debates.
He rarely joins the argument....but when he does...I do so enjoy it.
As Ross Perot is known to say....I am all ears.
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a link from a BBC opinion piece on the current situation, and it comes up with numbers similar to SASless' but adds one datum:
It's well-worth a read.
Now I have to wade back through and see how we got from the concept of a legal order to the way the war has been conducted (major cluster-f__k in my armchair opinion, and apparently the Pentagon quite sensibly agrees with me). AFAIK, even an officer in a war going badly can give legal orders and can be given legal orders to show up and do the job.
Most of the 71% who say their lives are good are Kurds and Shia; a good proportion of the 29% who say their lives are bad are no doubt Sunnis.
In other words, the polarisation of Iraqi society between winners and losers continues unabated.
And in the meantime the one thing that everyone can agree with is that life is much more dangerous in Iraq than it was when our last opinion poll came out.
Now I have to wade back through and see how we got from the concept of a legal order to the way the war has been conducted (major cluster-f__k in my armchair opinion, and apparently the Pentagon quite sensibly agrees with me). AFAIK, even an officer in a war going badly can give legal orders and can be given legal orders to show up and do the job.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riley Dove,
My apologies for commenting on your mail to Sassless. Your statement about the happiness of the Iraquis may be likened to the same situation that existed within the 3rd Reich between 1933 and its demise during which time the Nazis slaughtered 6 millon innocent people. What I remember RD is that under the Hitler regime the percentage of people happy with their lives was far higher too. What are you trying to say.
NC43
My apologies for commenting on your mail to Sassless. Your statement about the happiness of the Iraquis may be likened to the same situation that existed within the 3rd Reich between 1933 and its demise during which time the Nazis slaughtered 6 millon innocent people. What I remember RD is that under the Hitler regime the percentage of people happy with their lives was far higher too. What are you trying to say.
NC43
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker - Top job getting the figures on Iraqi deaths under Saddam. Pity the information on civilian deaths since the start of GW2 is almost as hard to find as the proverbial WMD's.
Can't really see that it adds much to the debate -no doubt that Saddam was ruthless -it doesn't really reasure that we might
concievably be witnessing slightly fewer deaths under our occupation than his tyranical regime.
As for torture - well yes Iraqi's have in the past and continue to torture their own. Saying it shouldn't happen there doesn't really explain the actions of Lindsey English and her mates at Abu Graib nor the British soldiers who decided their escapades
were worthy of photographing. What goes on in Guantanamo
remains to be seen and the various 'unknown'Boeing BBJ's ,Gulfstreams and Hercules that have visited Europe and the Middle East surely have passengers that don't enjoy luxury travel.
Can't really see that it adds much to the debate -no doubt that Saddam was ruthless -it doesn't really reasure that we might
concievably be witnessing slightly fewer deaths under our occupation than his tyranical regime.
As for torture - well yes Iraqi's have in the past and continue to torture their own. Saying it shouldn't happen there doesn't really explain the actions of Lindsey English and her mates at Abu Graib nor the British soldiers who decided their escapades
were worthy of photographing. What goes on in Guantanamo
remains to be seen and the various 'unknown'Boeing BBJ's ,Gulfstreams and Hercules that have visited Europe and the Middle East surely have passengers that don't enjoy luxury travel.