The Iraq War...

twinytwo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh yeah, the UN sent isaf in to Afghanistan so a gas pipeline could be built through it.

I love that one.

Funny isnt it, apart from the fact the pipeline has already been agreed. They however cannot build the pipe line until there is a stable governemnt in afghanistan. Wars have been fought for a hell of a lot less. You need to open your eyes.

imtdub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh yeah, the UN sent isaf in to Afghanistan so a gas pipeline could be built through it.

I love that one.

Afghanistan is more strategic than just oil n gas(listen to any of the heads of Pentagon, Hillary Clinton et al) Now America has a base on both sides of Iran, from here it can monitor China as well.

Americans thought it'll be easy in and out of Afghanistan...but how wrong they were...

Fratton Fred

twinytwo wrote: »

Funny isnt it, apart from the fact the pipeline has already been agreed. They however cannot build the pipe line until there is a stable governemnt in afghanistan. Wars have been fought for a hell of a lot less. You need to open your eyes.

The pipeline was agreed with the Taliban and would have been built if it wasn't for the war.

imtdub

Franticfrank wrote: »

While Saddam being ousted was great and badly needed, the aftermath of the invasion was a complete disaster. The fact that it was sold to the American public as a quest to find fabricated WMDs is unforgivable. Bush deserves a trial in the Hague. If WMDs were a valid argument for invasion and regime change, why didn't the United States attack the other parties in the 'Axis of Evil' - Iran and North Korea? Iran are threatening to wipe Israel off the map and North Korea are threatening Seoul with a nuclear strike. Seems Iraq was the least threatening of the three nations by far. Proof enough of the real reasons for the war in 2003.

Funny how world doesn't bother to ask if Israel have WMD's. Where as the other nations will be bullied/forced, if they don't agree attacked to co-operate with puppet UN's Inspectors. The hypocrisy of the so called equality champions.

Manic Moran

Americans thought it'll be easy in and out of Afghanistan...but how wrong they were...

If there was a strategic blunder with Iraq, Afghanistan was it. With proper allocation of resources, Afghanistan may well have been an easy in and out, but for years it was being done on the cheap. Had the level of resources which eventually were dedicated to Iraq actually been given to Afghanistan from the get-go, the opposition would have had a much tougher time in getting their ball rolling, and not only militarily. Afghanistan was basically an 18th century country with cell phones, with all the attendant possibilities which followed.

If WMDs were a valid argument for invasion and regime change, why didn't the United States attack the other parties in the 'Axis of Evil' - Iran and North Korea? Iran are threatening to wipe Israel off the map and North Korea are threatening Seoul with a nuclear strike. Seems Iraq was the least threatening of the three nations by far. Proof enough of the real reasons for the war in 2003.

Just because you can't do them all at once doesn't mean you shouldn't start with the easiest, or that you should do none of them.

"Look at Iraq" is not a valid argument for or against basing actions on Iran. The Iranians may or may not be working to a nuke, what the Iraqis were up to is irrelevant to their actions. It is likely that most members of the international community are mindful of the fact that Iraq didn't turn out quite as claimed, and that it was a long engagement, yet despite this it seems there is more disapproval of Iran than there was over Iraq. Iran should not be able to hide behind a shield of "Look what happened to Iraq, we must be innocent ourselves" and the complete process be carried out independently. It's like trying a second person for a crime once the first was acquitted. Jury looks at facts at hand, not whether or not the DPP were right the first time around.

old hippy

twinytwo wrote: »

Is all about the oil baby!... well for afghanistan is about gas but its all the same really. Forget about WMD's and removing dictators etc etc. It all about securing natural resources for america.

Not to mention the big juicy construction contracts. Mmmm, smell the greed.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

If there was a strategic blunder with Iraq, Afghanistan was it. With proper allocation of resources, Afghanistan may well have been an easy in and out, but for years it was being done on the cheap. Had the level of resources which eventually were dedicated to Iraq actually been given to Afghanistan from the get-go, the opposition would have had a much tougher time in getting their ball rolling, and not only militarily. Afghanistan was basically an 18th century country with cell phones, with all the attendant possibilities which followed.

No such thing as a quick 'in and out' in Afghanistan. There's also no such thing as winning a War in Afghanistan. How many have tried and failed now?

smurgen

Franticfrank wrote: »

Really, you are blowing my comments out of proportion and completely missing the point. I never said I would support an attack on Iran. I never said I would support Israel in a conflict. I merely said that if the US attacked Iraq in 2003, why not other 'rogue states' that were developing chemical and nuclear weapons?

Supposedly Iraq was an imminent threat. Why not North Korea and Iran after their threatening rhetoric? Sure the Israelis are lying, just like everybody else. But the fact remains - Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, and I hope they'll abandon it through diplomacy. Calm down, read what I wrote more clearly before going off topic and starting another one of countless anti-Israeli threads.

how do you know?were you there?

Aughrim1691.

George W Bush was a tyrant, just like many past American presidents. Tony Blair was just a lap dog, made to feed off the scraps and if he refused, he would starve.

Gatling

Godbless conspiracy theories

Nodin

karma_ wrote: »

No such thing as a quick 'in and out' in Afghanistan. There's also no such thing as winning a War in Afghanistan. How many have tried and failed now?

It was possible. There was a large vaccum there in the wake of the invasion. However the eye was taken off the ball and international good will lost when they went to Iraq, hence the resurgent taleban, local discontent and so on.

Chuck Stone

Gatling wrote: »

Godbless conspiracy theories

Like the conspiracy to create the conditions for war against Iraq in 2003?

Was that conspiracy a good conspiracy?

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

No such thing as a quick 'in and out' in Afghanistan. There's also no such thing as winning a War in Afghanistan. How many have tried and failed now?

I don't believe any previous expeditions were comparable in goal or technique, however. Just because the British could not establish a military control for the Empress, or the Soviets could not maintain a puppet dictatorship did not mean that an American goal of a representative government emphasizing benefits to the population over military engagements was doomed to failure. No previous campaigns in the country were directly applicable

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe any previous expeditions were comparable in goal or technique, however. Just because the British could not establish a military control for the Empress, or the Soviets could not maintain a puppet dictatorship did not mean that an American goal of a representative government emphasizing benefits to the population over military engagements was doomed to failure. No previous campaigns in the country were directly applicable

What is Karzai if he's not a puppet? He's been in office for over 10 years now and even the most recent election was fraught with electoral fraud. Now, is he a better option than the Taliban? Undoubtedly, but Afghanistan is for all intents and purposes untameable. It was sheer military folly to get involved from day one.

Gatling

Karzai is purely out for himself ,why else would he ban us special forces for areas where the Taliban are been taken on and according to military
sources actual progress been made with both locals and futher a field yet the Taliban complain and oh sorry us forces your not allowed in there anymore ,

Why don't people ever talk about how Afghanistan supplied 70% of the worlds fruit and nuts pure Russian invasion and yet all we here is what the tin foil hat brigade have read about oil ands gas pipes,

Or how 90+% of the Taliban are from Pakistan but yet they want Afghanistan for themselfs what no theories on this

Nodin

...wasn't the thread meant to be about the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war?

jamo2oo9

Bush made one big mistake. He should've invaded south Armagh. He'd find more oil there than in Iraq..

Dwork

davet82 wrote: »

Sorry Saint Saddam it is then :rolleyes:

No, but how many people, ordinary people, died in the process of removing him? And how has Iraq ended up? Is it the better? Doubtful, highly doubtful.

davet82

Dwork wrote: »

No, but how many people, ordinary people, died in the process of removing him? And how has Iraq ended up? Is it the better? Doubtful, highly doubtful.

See post #1 and #7 please

donegal_road

in today's Guardian, veteran Tomas Young writes what he refers to as 'his last letter' to Bush and Cheney condemning them for their lies and deceit, ruining the lives of thousands who they sent to war on the pretence of defending their country.

"The Last Letter: A Message to George W Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran".

G Power

donegal_road wrote: »

in today's Guardian, veteran Tomas Young writes what he refers to as 'his last letter' to Bush and Cheney condemning them for their lies and deceit, ruining the lives of thousands who they sent to war on the pretence of defending their country.

"The Last Letter: A Message to George W Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran".

here's a recent video, grab the kleenex before watching cos i cried for him, me, my kids, grandchildren and everybody around me.