This is just not right!

[Worthy4England]

Now I'm not suggesting they print that, because I do truly believe we should honour all those killed on our behalf. My point is, you know the papers WOULD print it if they thought that's what would sell. There are five pages of rant against this guy from one tiny NOTW article without any direct quotes, and without even going fully into what he is saying. Objectivity folks.

Top post imo but this was the only thing I couldn't agree with. They're dying for all sorts of reasons (poor equipment amongst them) but I can never accept that they are dying in Afghanistan on my behalf.

So right... They are dying for people who don't deserve their courage. And when they are wounded, these people will trail their way through the legal system to avoid paying them compensation they more than deserve. Despicable.

Which of the 2,964 US families that lost loved ones on Sept 11 fall into this category? Or the 56 grieving families in the UK when London was bombed in 2005?

A significant number of those people, murdered by terrorists, might well have opposed sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of us can claim their support for what happened after their murder.

The point Harry is making, and I support him, is that they are not fighting for me. I don't want them to be there. I didn't want them in Iraq (which state certainly had nothing to do with the al Qaida attacks in USA, London or Spain). I think a government that sent them there and then refused to compensate the maimed properly is despicable.

I'm not claiming their support. Just suggesting that there are people who would in my book certainly deserve (not necessarily want) the courage of our troops.

In response to Harry, who quite rightly points out that none of this activity stopped the London bombings, I would ask whether it stopped any bombings in other places and I believe the answer is "probably". That we damaged Al Qaeda infrastructure and ability to operate, I believe we did and continue to do so. The price for so doing is high the price for not doing may well be higher.

Maybe we should just sit back on the defensive and await the next terrorist bombing. When it occurs I will ask the people who support our withdrawal whether they feel better that we've just idly sat by and allowed it to be planned and exectuted. Whether they still have that glowing moral high ground feeling inside of them...

As for Iraq, then sure we should also have taken the moral high ground and allowed an undoubted tyrant to continue acts of genocide against the Kurds. And before anyone says "that wasn't why we went in" - I know (and don't actually care). As the saying runs - all it takes for evil to walk the earth is for good men to sit by and do nothing (or whichever version of it you prefer)...

[Prufrock]

Are there levels of evil? If so are certain people, the likes of Hussein, the Taliban, Kim Jong-Il so reprehensible that it is difficult to distinguish between them? There are many tyrants out there, and there are many ways of trying to deal with them. Iran and North Korea would both have been higher priorities for me though war would have been the last option. My own personal belief is Iraq was more about finishing Daddy's war, mixed with oil and a need to be seen taking a firm stand in the middle east more than it was about avenging genocide. Let it go on for long enough before.

[William the White]

So, worthy, who precisely were these 'good men' not standing idly by?

Were they people like you, prepared to support the telling of lies to the people of Britain and America to gain - temporary - support for a war of aggression that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11?

Most people who try to claim the moral high ground value the truth.

Strange position you've got yourself into here.

[Worthy4England]

So, worthy, who precisely were these 'good men' not standing idly by?

Were they people like you, prepared to support the telling of lies to the people of Britain and America to gain - temporary - support for a war of aggression that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11?

Most people who try to claim the moral high ground value the truth.

Strange position you've got yourself into here.

No I don't believe I'm in any strange position. Why so?

Should we turn a blind eye to tyranny we can help put an end to?

My support for us heading into Iraq had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction - I'm happy that a mass murdering tyrant and his cohorts have been removed.

I claim no moral high-ground.

I also see you've failed to answer whether we should have just sat here and waited for him to continue his acts of genocide when clearly we had the power to stop him?

[William the White]

So, worthy, who precisely were these 'good men' not standing idly by?

Were they people like you, prepared to support the telling of lies to the people of Britain and America to gain - temporary - support for a war of aggression that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11?

Most people who try to claim the moral high ground value the truth.

Strange position you've got yourself into here.

No I don't believe I'm in any strange position. Why so?

Should we turn a blind eye to tyranny we can help put an end to?

My support for us heading into Iraq had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction - I'm happy that a mass murdering tyrant and his cohorts have been removed.

I claim no moral high-ground.

I also see you've failed to answer whether we should have just sat here and waited for him to continue his acts of genocide when clearly we had the power to stop him?

On a number of occasions here I've said I opposed the war in Iraq. I'd answered that question before you asked it. You ask the question in a highly polemical way, but I'll try and answer.

I feel great joy when people rise up against tyranny. The end of stalinism was worth a vodka (bottle) or two in celebration round our way. The people themselves, of russia and eastern europe did it. I'm also in favour - on rare occasions, of dire necessity, and where feasible, that when genocide is being practised (as you allege in Iraq) that, with due process of international law, there should be intervention to protect people...

I was glad of the intervention in Kosovo, for instance. I am driven mad by the failure to do so effectively in Sudan. (I lived there for two years and feel a personal tug).

None of these conditions applied in Iraq. there was no genocide being practiced. there was certainly massive discrimination on racial, religious and gender grounds. It was abysmal and terrifying. But if genocide was being carried on, why did the world not know? There would have been a just cause for war. they didn't have it, so they turned to fiction. It's pretty obvious that Saddam was a target for reasons other than 9/11. And that war could not be sold to the British people. So they invented, and perverted truth, and lied.

Who were these 'good men' again? Tell us their names. Why were they good?

[Dujon]

. . . None of these conditions applied in Iraq. there was no genocide being practiced . . .

Truly? Type "Kurdish genocide" into your favourite search engine. Are all those reports and commentaries incorrect? Are they all based on some mythical events concocted by 'the west'?

I am not one to believe all I read in the press, William the White, but surely such protestations must rank with the anti-holocaust (Jews and Word War II) brigade? Certainly not in numbers, but surely the intent was similar?

[William the White]

. . . None of these conditions applied in Iraq. there was no genocide being practiced . . .

Truly? Type "Kurdish genocide" into your favourite search engine. Are all those reports and commentaries incorrect? Are they all based on some mythical events concocted by 'the west'?

I am not one to believe all I read in the press, William the White, but surely such protestations must rank with the anti-holocaust (Jews and Word War II) brigade? Certainly not in numbers, but surely the intent was similar?

Appalling ethnic violence, which bordered on - or was - genocide was committed against the Kurdish people in Iraq in the late 1980s.

Why did America not intervene to protect their human rights - as it definitely could have done in international law?

Perhaps the fact that the USA was arming Iraq to fight a proxy war against Iran?

There was no genocide directed against the Kurds when the invasion by W Bush and A Blair took place. If there had been they'd have shouted it out loud. there wasn't so they told lies.

I'm no defender of Saddam's tyranny or his repression of the Kurdish people - one that continues in turkey on a daily basis and - though it seems to have died down in iran, was also present there.

[Worthy4England]

On a number of occasions here I've said I opposed the war in Iraq. I'd answered that question before you asked it. You ask the question in a highly polemical way, but I'll try and answer.

I feel great joy when people rise up against tyranny. The end of stalinism was worth a vodka (bottle) or two in celebration round our way. The people themselves, of russia and eastern europe did it. I'm also in favour - on rare occasions, of dire necessity, and where feasible, that when genocide is being practised (as you allege in Iraq) that, with due process of international law, there should be intervention to protect people...

I was glad of the intervention in Kosovo, for instance. I am driven mad by the failure to do so effectively in Sudan. (I lived there for two years and feel a personal tug).

None of these conditions applied in Iraq. there was no genocide being practiced. there was certainly massive discrimination on racial, religious and gender grounds. It was abysmal and terrifying. But if genocide was being carried on, why did the world not know? There would have been a just cause for war. they didn't have it, so they turned to fiction. It's pretty obvious that Saddam was a target for reasons other than 9/11. And that war could not be sold to the British people. So they invented, and perverted truth, and lied.

Who were these 'good men' again? Tell us their names. Why were they good?

I didn't ask whether you opposed the war in Iraq - as you say, you'd already answered that question. I asked "whether we should have sat here and waited for him to continue his acts of genocide when clearly we had the power to stop him"

I think as Dujon as already correctly attested, the genocide against the Kurdish people is well chronicled and the world did know. It is still the largest chemical attack in history ever directed at civilians. In that sense, I have no moral problem with the fact that Hussain and Chemical Ali (who got his "chemical" tag for dropping mustard gas, Sarin, VX, chemical agents and nerve agents on the Kurds if memory serves) among others, got their just desserts on any pretext whatsoever.

The "good men doing nothing" are in my opinion anyone (pick yer own names) who would rather we didn't intervene to resolve crimes of this nature where we stand a reasonable chance of removing the culprits and have the power to do so.

[Lord Kangana]

Besides, if you're still buying the lie that we went into Iraq for anything other than to avoid the wholesale bankruptcy of the American State, then its a convenient excuse. Not that up to 100,000 Iraqi lives later leaves us much moral high ground left to take.

[InsaneApache]

It didn't work then, teh bankrupty thingy.

[Hoboh]

Besides, if you're still buying the lie that we went into Iraq for anything other than to avoid the wholesale bankruptcy of the American State, then its a convenient excuse. Not that up to 100,000 Iraqi lives later leaves us much moral high ground left to take.

Hang on a bit there LK, are you blaming that on us? As I see it its mainly Iraqi's and others backed by elements in other mid east countries with capital and driven by the nut jobs in Iran and Pakistan causing most of the death there.
We are slightly losing the plot here Iraq has been done to death this is about a serving Soldier with a fairly lousy attendance record spouting off about going back to Afghanistan.
TBH i would think he would not have gone for another tour anyway, surely he would have been banged up for going walk abouts for two years! maybe his whole arguement is designed to make him look good instead of being labelled a skiver? It does however open a great debate about the rights and wrongs of war, my opinion is none of it is good but it happens and we should support those fellow countrymen who get caught up in it for whatever reason. By nature of what they do, they don't have a voice, so those back home should speak out for them, not the serving Soldier himself.
A lot is made of the last invasion of Iraq and this involvement in Afghanistan and I would suggest people should remember it is the great socialist Labour party who took us into both conflicts then sent in troops unequiped to do the job in the first place when voting in the next election!

[Lord Kangana]

Just out of interest, which other invading countries precipitated the mass slaughter? I thought the now accepted line was that we went in to stop the genocide, what I hadn't figured on was widespread acceptance of it being replaced by a bloodbath.

And to answer the bankcruptcy thing IA, no, no it didn't work. America invaded. Which is what you do when someone challenges you as a free-market economy, apparantly.

[Hoboh]

Just out of interest, which other invading countries precipitated the mass slaughter? I thought the now accepted line was that we went in to stop the genocide, what I hadn't figured on was widespread acceptance of it being replaced by a bloodbath.

And to answer the bankcruptcy thing IA, no, no it didn't work. America invaded. Which is what you do when someone challenges you as a free-market economy, apparantly.

We don't accept it, why do you think we have troops deployed in the Arsehole of the world? there ain't no oil in Afghanistan in any great quantity or are we and the USA starting up our own drug business?
We are trying to stop the Taliban training and giving safehavens to the knobs who are quite happy to reek death and destruction in places like Iraq.

[William the White]

Just to say - neither Worthy nor Dujon have found any genocidal acts committed by Saddam Hussein's regime since the late 1980s. We didn't intervene then - and we all know why not.

Neither has managed to find any genocide going on at the time of our intervention. If there had been, Western leaders would have been shouting from the rooftops about it - and rightly so... In answer to Worthy - it wasn't necessary to use military force, therefore, to prevent genocide. There wasn't any going on.

Were we 'sitting on our hands?'. No - sanctions were in place, and had been effective for a decade. In addition air reconnaisance and the willingness to use air power had been very effective in preventing Saddam using his armed forces against the Kurds - to the point where Kurdish parts of the country in the North east were exercising a semi-autonomy. Whatever else the reason for attack, it sure wasn't genocide - and neither was that reason actually advanced at the time.

Was it appropriate to use it to depose Saddam? Possibly, if it was legal. That is dubious. Was it a good idea?

The resulting bloodbath - inflicted initially by allied forces, and then by a deeply riven society tearing itself apart in a brutal civil war - indicates that it had enormous costs of every kind (though the Americans expected the war to pay for itself, through their subsequent control of oil and business).

The main beneficiary of this, ironically, has been Iran, which now, for the first time, has a shi'ite government in power in Baghdad, which some allege to be subservient to it. I'm not sure about this myself, but I am certain that they are more likely to be allies than enemies.

I suspect only a few would want Saddam back.

And about the same number would want the occupation to continue. It's a mess, and I'm glad our troops are out of it, at last.

I guess we should end this. It is, as hoboh says, a distraction from the initial theme of the thread, not to mention hoboh's more pressing concern about parking in English cities. I'm happy to give anyone else the last word that wants it. Don't think anyone's likely to change his/her mind.

[thebish]

I didn't ask whether you opposed the war in Iraq - as you say, you'd already answered that question. I asked "whether we should have sat here and waited for him to continue his acts of genocide when clearly we had the power to stop him"

I think as Dujon as already correctly attested, the genocide against the Kurdish people is well chronicled and the world did know. It is still the largest chemical attack in history ever directed at civilians. In that sense, I have no moral problem with the fact that Hussain and Chemical Ali (who got his "chemical" tag for dropping mustard gas, Sarin, VX, chemical agents and nerve agents on the Kurds if memory serves) among others, got their just desserts on any pretext whatsoever.

The "good men doing nothing" are in my opinion anyone (pick yer own names) who would rather we didn't intervene to resolve crimes of this nature where we stand a reasonable chance of removing the culprits and have the power to do so.

which is precisely what we did. I think what you and Dujon are descrobing was in the 1980's (in fact I remember going on demo's back then trying to highlight the fact of the genocide - there were not very many of us - were you there Worthy??

we sat on our hands for well over 20yrs - in fact - worse - the US encouraged the Kurds to rise up - promising all sorts of help and aid - and then sat back and watched them get slaughtered...

we did NOT go into Iraq to stop genocide - surely you can't seriously believe that?

think back to the 80's - what was happening? the iran/iraq war - Saddam was to all intents and purposes (the Ba'ath party) installed by the US to suit their purposes - and they were busy arming him so they could fling missiles and planes and troops at Iran..

The US allowed the export of anthrax, vital ingredients for chemical weapons and cluster bombs to Iraq to be used against Iran. The US provide intelligence on Iranian troop movements against whom Iran then used nerve gas.

Here's Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983..




what else was going on in the 1980's??

ahh yes - the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - where we (or largely the US) were funding and training the mujaheddinn (sp?) as guerilla freedom fighters - led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was notorious in the 1970's for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. so where did the taliban come from??


in other words - none of this is about stopping genocide or protecting the rights of women wearing the veil...

[Worthy4England]

So to sum it all up then, I take it there's a concensus for us to go in and level North Korea now?

Good.

You are correct that there was no genocide going on when we invaded in 2003 (as far as anyone knows) - I don't believe I said there was.

We should have carried on up the coast road in 1990 and done the job then.

Fact that we did it later, bothers me not one whit.

[CAPSLOCK]

So to sum it all up then, I take it there's a concensus for us to go in and level North Korea now?

Good.

You are correct that there was no genocide going on when we invaded in 2003 (as far as anyone knows) - I don't believe I said there was.

We should have carried on up the coast road in 1990 and done the job then.

Fact that we did it later, bothers me not one whit.

Give the man a cigar

[thebish]

So to sum it all up then, I take it there's a concensus for us to go in and level North Korea now?

Good.

You are correct that there was no genocide going on when we invaded in 2003 (as far as anyone knows) - I don't believe I said there was.

We should have carried on up the coast road in 1990 and done the job then.

Fact that we did it later, bothers me not one whit.

but your responses certainly suggest that you think this is the reason we went in... not least this one...

Should we turn a blind eye to tyranny we can help put an end to?

My support for us heading into Iraq had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction - I'm happy that a mass murdering tyrant and his cohorts have been removed.

forgive me if I have misread you - why DO you think we invaded Iraq then?

[CAPSLOCK]

bish, are you saying he wasn't a mass murdering tyrant

Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings?

You know, like now Hitlers not had anybody killed for 60 years, is he now a nice man?

[thebish]

bish, are you saying he wasn't a mass murdering tyrant

Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings?

You know, like now Hitlers not had anybody killed for 60 years, is he now a nice man?

no CAPS - keep up