Nagel Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 i said a long time ago that saddam was a despot BUT iraq and most of the people were stable sadly now weve destroyed any chance of stability, its a heaving mess of lawlessness and a breeding ground for terrorists If only they'd listened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Did we actually achieve anything in Iraq or did we just get rid of the strong man an allow the terrorists to take over? And of course, the irony is.... Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda' There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says. The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday. Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support LINK [bBC News, 9 September 2006] But it would be wrong to say that nothing was achieved by the Iraq invasion: In the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, the annual defense budget has more than doubled to $700 billion and annual defense industry profits have nearly quadrupled, approaching $25 billion last year. Now defense spending is poised to retreat, and so are industry profits. LINK Defence industry profits to fall? Quick, who can we invade next? (If you haven't worked out the real reasons for the Iraq invasion by now, there's no hope for you. Just keep waving the flag and going on about "our boys".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza80 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 let me guess the US and the British leave and then the bombs start. Let me guess that the same will happen in Afganistan once the British leave? I'm guessing the Taliban are waiting paitently and at this moment in time are getting the carving knives sharpened ready for multiple beheadings once we have left, and anyone who back us (interpriters etc...) will be for the chop as soon as that last UK/US Soldier has left the country. Theres only one way we can stop Al Queda taking over, we need to put Sadam and Gadafi back in charge, those two will soon put a stop to Al Queda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 let me guess the US and the British leave and then the bombs start. Let me guess that the same will happen in Afganistan once the British leave? I'm guessing the Taliban are waiting paitently and at this moment in time are getting the carving knives sharpened ready for multiple beheadings once we have left, and anyone who back us (interpriters etc...) will be for the chop as soon as that last UK/US Soldier has left the country. Theres only one way we can stop Al Queda taking over, we need to put Sadam and Gadafi back in charge, those two will soon put a stop to Al Queda. Sorry, but there's no other way to say it. They're both dead and you're really rather dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 And of course, the irony is.... LINK [bBC News, 9 September 2006] But it would be wrong to say that nothing was achieved by the Iraq invasion: LINK Defence industry profits to fall? Quick, who can we invade next? (If you haven't worked out the real reasons for the Iraq invasion by now, there's no hope for you. Just keep waving the flag and going on about "our boys".) I don't really know the reasons why we really went but the reasons given were bobbins. He didn't have WMDs. I thought that at the time and it was proven. He had no links to al q despite bush pushing that lie at every oppotunity (even after he left office he was trying to tie Iraq to 911 in a sky news interview). Defence companies are laying off staff hand over fist so any gains for them as a result of our sand based adventures must have been short lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electerrific Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Does it matter (to Dubya, Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney)? We got oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If we did it for oil why am I paying £1.39 for a litre of diesel? are you really stupid enough to think theyd actually lower prices even if they their hands on more supplies?? it just means they get richer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If we did it for oil why am I paying £1.39 for a litre of diesel? Do you not think some of the things saddam did were awful? He was hardly mother Teresa. It wasn't about the price of fuel to the general public, it was about the availability of oil, & the profits which could be made by the major American oil corporations. That's all worked out rather well as far as they are concerned. As for Saddam being a bad man, yes he was. He was also a bad man when we - USA & UK - were supplying him with weapons & technology whilst he was at war with Iran. Didn't seem to matter at that point for some reason. Question is, would less people be dead today had we not invaded? Also, could we have altered the situation by using sanctions & other diplomatic actions? I believe the answer to those questions is a definite yes to the first & a maybe to the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 are you really stupid enough to think theyd actually lower prices even if they their hands on more supplies?? it just means they get richer So who gets the oil then ? Not the Americans, not us. In Afghanistan the Chinese just rocked up and bought the oil rights without a shot being fired. They seemed to have done alright out of it. ---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 18:42 ---------- It wasn't about the price of fuel to the general public, it was about the availability of oil, & the profits which could be made by the major American oil corporations. That's all worked out rather well as far as they are concerned. As for Saddam being a bad man, yes he was. He was also a bad man when we - USA & UK - were supplying him with weapons & technology whilst he was at war with Iran. Didn't seem to matter at that point for some reason. Question is, would less people be dead today had we not invaded? Also, could we have altered the situation by using sanctions & other diplomatic actions? I believe the answer to those questions is a definite yes to the first & a maybe to the second. Really not sure about the first question, certainly if you start to include Kuwaitis and Iranians he killed as well. But let's say sanctions did the job and he was disposed, as Egyptians and Libyans will testify it's far from bloodless and a you'll still end up with centuries old blood feuds being started up again. We did supply Iraq with weapons but I'm sure that was only done as Iran was perceived as a bigger threat. Do we not sell weapons to anyone instead? That will hit the economy! EDIT : we should never has gone into Iraq but lets not paint saddam as a saint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 So who gets the oil then ? Not the Americans, not us. In Afghanistan the Chinese just rocked up and bought the oil rights without a shot being fired. They seemed to have done alright out of it. When I heard that, I couldn't help but wonder as to who exactly they negotiated those oil rights with? The Chinese are pretty smart but are they aware of Afghanistan's history? Afghanistan is not a country in the way that we normally understand that term. It is composed of hundreds of clans with tribal alliances & disputes going back centuries. There isn't a central elected government who you can reach an agreement with. Factor in that they are born warriors who seem to relish the thought of dying in battle, & legal agreements are wishful thinking. They have defeated the British on several occasions,also the Russians, & are currently in the process of seeing off us & the USA. Good luck to China with following through on that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.