Iraq, 10 years on

[obiter dictum]

Seems to me it is the west trying to take over the middle east by invading and occupying nation states as a foreign power, then getting their butts kicked and evicted by the indigenous population

[Conniff]

What middle east countries have the west taken over and occupied ?

[obiter dictum]

Iraq and Afganistan for a start

 

Only the first Gulf war with Iraq was sanctioned by the security council

 

Not to mention direct military support for Libya and Egypt after destabilising those countries

[Conniff]

You should know that Afghanistan was taken on by the allied forces because of the more than 3,000 innocent people killed by a Taliban terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and was ruled at that time by the Taliban terrorist organisation.

 

You should also remember that Russia invaded Afghanistan and stayed there for 9 years and lets not forget:

 

Poland

Baltic states

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Austria

Korea

Czechoslovakia

 

and countless others, the aim to force Soviet style communism on them. North Korea still has it to this day and look at the state of that country.

[obiter dictum]

Say what you wish but it was an army of Occupation and never sanctioned by the UN security Council. It was an american led coalition

 

Yes and the west were in Afganistan for 13 years before being evicted with their tail between there legs by farmers with AK47 made out of pots and pans

[BarnOwl1]

You should know that Afghanistan was taken on by the allied forces because of the more than 3,000 innocent people killed by a Taliban terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and was ruled at that time by the Taliban terrorist organisation.

 

You should also remember that Russia invaded Afghanistan and stayed there for 9 years and lets not forget:

 

Poland

Baltic states

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Austria

Korea

Czechoslovakia

 

and countless others, the aim to force Soviet style communism on them. North Korea still has it to this day and look at the state of that country.

 

Totally agree Conif!!

 

I doubt Obiter Dictum has any real understanding of what has happened or is happened just a very blinkered narrow view from a very far left stance.

[obiter dictum]

Tut-Tut BarnOwl1

 

You disappoint me

 

Phishing again for an argument are we??

 

Well i am not biting

Edited October 1, 2015 by obiter dictum

[tobyjugg2]

agree that he should've been deposed re GW1 under the terms of his surrender, but he wasn't. and agree that he was a tyrant.

are you saying that you think GW2 was the right thing to do?

the public reasons given for it have been shown to be incredible, but as everyone knows the public reasons often differ from the real reasons. a quick read of the un inspector reports at the time shows that there were 'certain' 'biological agents' around since #1. but, at the time of #2 they were no longer there. but there was 'some thing(s)' according to that 'curveball' and that seems to be mainly what they relied on! incredible!

no doubt though he could've been later deposed without the need for a 'war', and the unnecessary loss of how many lives at the time and post?

its all ironic, 'we' taught him how to be tyrannical, gas people (the brits did that there yonks ago), supported him against iran, he was then US friendly, kept the 'peace'/interests there, etc. ah the politics.

but, as soon as he threatened to trade oil in euros (after GW#1), which would've partly crashed the us dollar, and completely if others had followed? he became enemy #1. get an US friendly gov't in there asap? (similar to the politics surrounding the libyan 'spring'?).

as for harbouring terrorists, there's prob more active global terrorists in some other countries?

maybe the best policy could've been to be friendly and get Mcdonalds etc set up there. they soon would've been on board

(don't get me wrong, am not being pro or anti, just posting up objective re what's all out there anyway.)

 

agree with all of that, and I think you have hit the nail on the head with:

 

"but, as soon as he threatened to trade oil in euros (after GW#1), which would've partly crashed the us dollar, and completely if others had followed? he became enemy #1. get an US friendly gov't in there asap? (similar to the politics surrounding the libyan 'spring'?)."

 

and that seems to me to be the basis of the Libya deposement and destabilisation as well. Gadaffi wanted to set up and oil backed 'gold type system' replacing the debt based dollar systems.

 

For Syria, its simply the last real Russian ally and outpost in the area. IS is blatantly just an excuse.

Syria falling would leave Iran alone and more vulnerable, hence more likely to be compliant.

 

If the mightiest military power in the world, along with 59 other countries can only bomb a path for the expansion of IS, in Iraq, Libya and Syria ...

 

when Russia/Syria hits them hard on day 1 of their strikes in Syria

and the French (based on French intelligence not US instructions) take out a training camp on day one of theirs in Syria

 

yet the yanks can only squeal - you hit some 'free Syrain army' (aka some IS supporting militant group who the yanks are supplying),

and NATO member Turkey ignores IS and bombs Kurds

and IS affiliates expand in Iraq under the US noses while 'official' Iraq moves to join Assad and Putin as their best bet- says it all really

 

 

Even 2 TORY security council members are saying we should be working with Assad to defeat IS.

 

The Yanks wouold appear to have no desire whatsever to defeat ISIS - quite the opposite it would seem.

[obiter dictum]

The Russians will never allow western troops into Syria on the ground

 

The reason being is that they have interest in a major Gas pipe line running through Syria destination europe

 

Assad knows the russians will protect that so the pair of them have a sort of symbiotic relationship. Assad stays in power with russian support

 

Iran has the largest reserve of natural gas on the planet

 

This pipeline will be in direct competition to the Azerbaijan pipe line into europe

 

And you still think this is ALL about ISIS??

 

Putin is looking after his own best interests

Edited October 1, 2015 by obiter dictum

[BarnOwl1]

Tut-Tut BarnOwl1

 

You disappoint me

 

Phishing again for an argument are we??

 

Well i am not biting

 

 

:lol:

[tobyjugg2]

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

[Guest]

re syria, a recent media report about china possibly getting (further) involved....?

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/chinese-navy-looms-as-russia-strikes-syrian-rebels/

[tobyjugg2]

re syria, a recent media report about china possibly getting (further) involved....?

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/chinese-navy-looms-as-russia-strikes-syrian-rebels/

 

As another security council member they are probably simply adding political weight against the US stance. Effectively 'standing' with the Russians against ISIS.

 

Hopefully the REAL fight against ISIS and its support has started.

[Guest]

with the Report due soon, Blair gets his preemptive strike in?

eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34630380

[tobyjugg2]

with the Report due soon, Blair gets a preemptive strike in?

eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34630380

 

I have no idea what reality the statements in that link refer to ford.

 

"He suggested that if the Iraq invasion had not taken place the country could have degenerated into civil war, as Syria did."

External intervention caused the expansion of small groups of militant activists into 'civil war' (as the west call it) in Syria.

 

In Iraq, Saddam would have remained in power without the invasion. - but no mention of that. Iraq would have fallen into civil war without it Blair says

- I thought that was effectively the state of Iraq now with the Taliban reclaiming entire areas and Iraq's western trained and equipped military running away from fights with them, and the Yanks turning again to the Kurds.