egafd.com

I do regret the loss of our servicemen and women in that conflict. Having served and lost friends I know EXACTLY what it feels like. I still maintain that these operations are superb training opportunities for our services and though I regret the loss by the "innocent" Iraqis their own regime is to blame for them.

"I'm not happy that America and the UK has to police the world but I'm horrified at the UN's current record and so backing ourselves for now"

That's the issue isn't it? America and the UK don't have to police the world via illegal wars, they have merely taken on the role in the case of Iraq, for example, for purely realpolitik reasons and massaged the limited security "evidence" to produce a raison d'etre for the war.

You think the Arabs in Gaza hate the US because the Americans largely have a different religion?

Given America has a history over many decades of supporting murderous regimes and similar oppositions in order to support their foreign objectives e.g. the mujahaddin when they were fighting the Russians, Pinochet, the Shah, El Salvador, Chile etc etc. I am not so sure if a Muslim theocracy wouldnt have certain advantages!

[quote]I am not so sure if a Muslim theocracy wouldnt have certain advantages![/quote]

Obviously you don't have a nine year old daughter or know anyone who's homosexual.

Wasn't one of the reasons we dismantled our empire back in the 1950's and 60's because it was too expensive to send troops to deal with issues abroad? The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya for example, which we sent many troops to deal with but the cost of it was such that we werent too keen to do it again. Funny how we now find unlimited money, and during the worst recession ever, to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sam
You really dont have to take things quite so literally.

The point that I am making is that individual global power countries like the US have followed foreign policies for decades which have resulted in horrendous dictators staying/getting into power. The sort of people you were highlighting as being worthy of being on the receiving end of a "just" war.

As flawed as the UN is, it still gives some checks and balances to try and prevent a country operating like Attila the Hun. That is, provided super powers like the US and to a much lesser extent, Britain dont ignore the UN and launch illegal wars.

Cheers
D

I know, David. Sorry about that, it was a little bit of a cheap shot.

I totally agree with you about US foreign policy but I do think they're an easy excuse target at times. I can only repeat what I've already said in retort to your latest points. The UN's apathy towards people in Rwanda and Darfur (and the economic sanctions in Iraq before the war) have killed or impoverished more people than the war has. Remember that more than half of the casualties in Iraq is Muslim against Muslim. Plenty of innocents were killed in WW2 but it was a just war. (I'm still not sure why we had to carpet bomb Hamburg, the German town which most opposed the Nazis, though).

I think it should be illegal to watch millions butchered, while sat on our flabby arses doing nothing, but that's just me.

On a final note I will leave you with this: I think that your's, and people like you, attitudes to the war have amounted to more death in Iraq and Afghanistan than mine (I know you've not objected to the Afghanistan conflict but a lot of anti-Iraq people are anti-Afghanistan so bare with me here). I think that an insurgency group terrorising a neighbourhood in Bagdad, or village in Afghanistan, are encouraged when they know we're not in for the long haul. They can, and do, I'm sure, recruit youths with the threat to the people that when the UK and US are gone they'll still be there to punish them for, as they see it, treason and betrayal. In these circumstances, as a villager, who are you going to be most loyal to? How are we supposed to get the people on our side when they know there's a good chance we'll tire of the war and go home, leaving them at the mercy of the wolves?

I think that some people want us to move out of Iraq because they know what's likely to happen when we do. There'll be even more murder and violence and then they can look smug and say 'I told you so'. Some people don't want the war to turn out to be a success because they don't want to admit they may have been wrong. The US is the big bad wolf and a democratic, peaceful Iraq would shatter their illusions, or portrayals of it.

I'm not accusing you of such a mindset, David, but I fear that it's the mindset of a lot of people. Again, I'm pro-emancipation and think Iraq was just.

"On a final note I will leave you with this: I think that your's, and people like you, attitudes to the war have amounted to more death in Iraq and Afghanistan than mine (I know you've not objected to the Afghanistan conflict but a lot of anti-Iraq people are anti-Afghanistan so bare with me here). I think that an insurgency group terrorising a neighbourhood in Bagdad, or village in Afghanistan, are encouraged when they know we're not in for the long haul. They can, and do, I'm sure, recruit youths with the threat to the people that when the UK and US are gone they'll still be there to punish them for, as they see it, treason and betrayal. In these circumstances, as a villager, who are you going to be most loyal to? How are we supposed to get the people on our side when they know there's a good chance we'll tire of the war and go home, leaving them at the mercy of the wolves?
"

This appears to me to be completely nonsensical. I was against the war from the start like the million or so who protested in London. What is the argument here? That if Bush and Blair hadnt invaded Iraq, there would have been many more Iraqis killed by Saddam than the 60,000+ killed by the invasion force? I would suggest that this would be very hard to prove and is total guesswork.

Secondly what do you expect people "like me" do? Be against the war before it starts and then change our views after it's started because you argue the opponents of the war in Iraq will get a boost?

The bottomline is the war was illegal. If you had followed the Chilcott inquiry you would know that plenty of evidence was put before Bush and Blair telling them that the opposition to the invasion would be intense and would create an "army of Bin Ladens". In addition Blair was told that the military needed more time to plan for such a war. It also became obvious that the US planning for post-war was completely incompetent.

Its fairly clear to me where the blame lies and it isnt with the people who opposed the war immediately when it looked to be on the cards.

Cheers
D

But we ARE in Iraq now, and pulling out might cause more deaths than staying in. Whatever your opinion of the war was in 2003 it should change with the circumstances. Nothing nonsensical about it at all. I didn't say you (and when I say 'you' I just mean anti-war people) had the agenda all along but once the war started, it blowing up in our faces if we pull out early will give a lot of people the satisfaction of exclaiming 'I told you so!'

"But we ARE in Iraq now, and pulling out might cause more deaths than staying in"

For your info, British troops are not in Iraq. I'm not American. Not yet anyway!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/world ... 9iraq.html
This was a prerequisite by the way for the Chilcot inquiry to take place.

"Whatever your opinion of the war was in 2003 it should change with the circumstances. Nothing nonsensical about it at all"

If by "your opinion" you mean my view that its illegal. This is a bit like saying you are against the use of nuclear weapons but should change your mind when they are fired in order to get behind our boys pressing the trigger. Not entirely logical! I repeat MY opinion of the war is that it is illegal.

"How are we supposed to get the people on our side when they know there's a good chance we'll tire of the war and go home, leaving them at the mercy of the wolves?"

By the way, at no time in this thread, did I state that all troops should leave Iraq. You i.e. Sam, will probably riposte that this was a reference to anti-war people, but I was under the impression that we (as in Sam and David J) were having a discussion rather than an exchange about your interpretation of what "anti-war people" may or may not think?

"I think that your's, and people like you, attitudes to the war have amounted to more death in Iraq and Afghanistan than mine"

This is the classic totalitarian argument. To paraphrase "It is your opposition that has led to these poor people the army has had to kill. We wouldnt have had this opposition if there hadn't been people opposing the war"
I repeat. Study the CHilcot inquiry and you will see that this level of opposition was predictable in exactly the same way that the opposition that British and American troops have met in Afghanistan. This is the key factor here, not whether people have or have not changed their views about the war.

[quote]If by "your opinion" you mean my view that its illegal.[/quote]

Not in this instance. I think you know what I meant, David, because I don't think you're stupid. To clarify: regardless of your opinion of going into Iraq in 2003 -illegal or not- if there is justification to believe things will be worse if we leave -again, regardless of legality- some people (not necessarily you personally) still give out the vibe we (ok the UK troops aren't there now but this doesn't take anything away from any of my points) should leave just so they're proven right.

[quote]This is a bit like saying you are against the use of nuclear weapons but should change your mind when they are fired in order to get behind our boys pressing the trigger.[/quote]

Hmmm, that's not really so, though, is it, David? Getting behind our boys to send out the message to frightened villagers we won't leave them to the butchers and getting behind a nuclear holocaust are a little different. You're the one being nonsensical now.

[quote]Not entirely logical![/quote]

Correct, you're not being logical.

[quote]I repeat MY opinion of the war is that it is illegal.[/quote]

I think I conceded this to you a while back. And I'll repeat MY opinion that it is just.

[quote]By the way, at no time in this thread, did I state that all troops should leave Iraq.[/quote]

I don't think I accused you of it, did I?

[quote]You i.e. Sam, will probably riposte that this was a reference to anti-war people, but I was under the impression that we (as in Sam and David J) were having a discussion rather than an exchange about your interpretation of what "anti-war people" may or may not think?[/quote]

You were right, I did. I'm sorry if the topic of discussion drifted slightly off topic. I'm prepared to bring it back on track. In my defence it was just a, as I put it, 'final note'. I was just expressing an opinion on something close to the matter at hand. You didn't have to defend any position because as I already said in my original 'final note', I wasn't accusing you directly of anything. You did, however, choose to reply to it and now complain I brought it up. This I find confusing.

[quote]This is the classic totalitarian argument. To paraphrase "It is your opposition that has led to these poor people the army has had to kill. We wouldnt have had this opposition if there hadn't been people opposing the war"[/quote]

I thought we weren't discussing this? Do you want to or not? For the record your translation of what I actually said is wrong. It was not blaming anti-war protesters for deaths our soldiers killed, I said I'd blame them, in part, for giving insurgents a boost in morale, and encouragement to keep on going with their cause. This boost, I think I'm fair to assume (since we know morale is taken very very seriously in any conflict) could lead to more deaths than otherwise.