This is just not right!

[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.

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?

Let me try and clarify Bish I think you've got some selective quotes that are well intentioned, but might have missed the "whole"

I asked the question, "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 was trying to judge whether people felt there was a legitimate need occasionally for some Country(ies) taking a military stance against tyrants gassing sections of the people that live within their countries borders - call it Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing or whatever. I knew, as far as is reported, that these events took place in relation to the Kurds in the late 1980's (and yes I was on the odd Demo - in keeping with the original intent of the thread, as a non Armed Forces Person). My view is that we should have gone in and sorted it out there and then - might have stopped Kuwait getting invaded a couple of years later.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I believe that Saddam's genocide was the reason we invaded much later on other than I posed the question should we sit idly by when we have the power to stop such a genocide when we can fairly clearly see it's going on - my question has been constant around whether it's acceptable to remove murdering bastards by armed force if necessary where we have the capability to do so? - just to put it into context, I probably wouldn't advocate us jumping into China to "sort out" their human rights abuses. I think I've said in a few places that I don't particularly care why we invaded under the "Anti-terrorist coalition banner", it may well have been for all the wrong reasons, but the world is a better place without him and his Government.

[thebish]

ok - that's clearer and morte reasoned than I had read it earlier - so, apologies.

yes I would say there are times when it is acceptable to use international force to remove tyrants,

I DON'T think that's why "we" acted in Iraq - though it is often how it is dressed up - as it is in Afghanistan - that was the point I was trying to make.

as for what I would have done - no - I would not have pursued an invasion when we did - though, i might have done back in the 80's (maybe my mind was more black and white back then in those student days!) - cos nack then it would have been linked to genocide...

I would have followed Hans Blick's advice - I believe Saddam was quite well contained and was becoming a lame duck - my own guess (which is, of course, not provable, is that continuing down the sanctions line may well have led to a weakened - and increasingly desperate Saddam being overthrown by his own peopls - what would have emerged is anyone's guess - maybe someone worse - but creating the conditions for a domestic coup/revolution is more often a better strategy than wading in yourself and getting bogged down and becoming responsible for everything)

granted - he shot himself in the foot because he wanted other nations to assume he had Nuke-capability (or was close to it) - and you can understand why - but it is ALWAYS a mistake to assume that the US has a level of sophistication in its foreign policy that would take that kind of double-think into account.

I was merely trying to point out the naivity of thinking that the REASONS we went into Iraq and afghanistan were humanitarian - they were not - otherwise there are much more obvious - but no les easily "winnable" situations that Iraq at the time - Sudan and Zimbabwe to name but two (without considering North Korea)

my own view as to why we went into Iraq is not so much the popular "oil" theory - thought that doesn't harm! - summat way simpler - Bush's pride and Blair being trapped into acting to preserve the "special relationship" between the US and the UK (which for a brief spell became the "coalition of the willing" )

does anyone remember the Colin Powell presentation to the UN?? I remember sitting there open mouthed at the bare-faced lying bollox that he presented (cos he was told to) with flipcharts and doctored satellite photos in order to try to persuade a reluctant world to join them on this crusade..... does anyone remember the pictures of the "mobile biological weapons laborotories" that they surmised Saddam must have - but they hadn't found - yet produced artists representations of what they probably looked like - and (as it turns out) - there never was any evidence for any such thing - and none were ever found...

if I go on I will have to move this over to the "what makes me angry" thread!

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst not directly taking on the current arguments/differences of opinion etc, I found this which backs up nicely my earlier post aboutthe futility of trying to sort this mess out. It's from a self description of what Taliban is all about: (from Googling around)

"We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years.

Instead of an election, their leader's legitimacy came from "Bay'ah" or oath of allegiance in imitation of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. On 4 April 1996, Mullah Omar had "the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed," taken from its shrine "for the first time in 60 years." Wrapping himself in the relic, he appeared on the roof of a building in the center of Kandahar while hundreds of Pashtun mullahs below shouted "Amir al-Mu'minin!" (Commander of the Faithful), in a de facto pledge of support.

Their is little the west could ever do against this form of " anti-modern" thinking that prevails in Afghanistan. This offers no solution or argumnt, just a seemingly hopeless one-sided battle when they see their cause as the will of Allah in a Muslim ruled environ.

[Lord Kangana]

This is everything to do with Oil, Money and power. Anything else is superfluos. And if anyone thinks, after the expenses scandal, that the Politicians aren't barefaced liars who'd do anything to feather their own nests (including getting in to bed with Petroleum companies and arms manafacturers) they need to give their heads a shake.

Does anyone, really, seriously, in their heart-of-hearts think that our governments did this on our behalf to make the world safer, to liberate women, to bring democracy? Is there anyone left in the world so naive?

[senorjoeyo]

This is everything to do with Oil, Money and power. Anything else is superfluos. And if anyone thinks, after the expenses scandal, that the Politicians aren't barefaced liars who'd do anything to feather their own nests (including getting in to bed with Petroleum companies and arms manafacturers) they need to give their heads a shake.

Does anyone, really, seriously, in their heart-of-hearts think that our governments did this on our behalf to make the world safer, to liberate women, to bring democracy? Is there anyone left in the world so naive?

Your correct, two faced wankshafts the lot of them. However the point people are trying to make is not about the reasons why we went into Iraq, but that the action did make the world safer, did liberate women and did bring some form of democracy to the country, I for one am glad we went in, doesn't make tony blair and co anything but lying tossers mind.

[William the White]

Whilst not directly taking on the current arguments/differences of opinion etc, I found this which backs up nicely my earlier post aboutthe futility of trying to sort this mess out. It's from a self description of what Taliban is all about: (from Googling around)

"We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years.

Instead of an election, their leader's legitimacy came from "Bay'ah" or oath of allegiance in imitation of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. On 4 April 1996, Mullah Omar had "the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed," taken from its shrine "for the first time in 60 years." Wrapping himself in the relic, he appeared on the roof of a building in the center of Kandahar while hundreds of Pashtun mullahs below shouted "Amir al-Mu'minin!" (Commander of the Faithful), in a de facto pledge of support.

Their is little the west could ever do against this form of " anti-modern" thinking that prevails in Afghanistan. This offers no solution or argumnt, just a seemingly hopeless one-sided battle when they see their cause as the will of Allah in a Muslim ruled environ.

Best not take religiously-based rituals too literally, Tango. They have history that applies legitimacy, but it doesn't necessarily mean the literal truth. The Taliban uses the ritual. But, in truth, even now Afghanistan is a complex web of regional, tribal and religious disunity, order and disorder.

One religion has a tiny group of unelected people that in secret determines a supreme leader who is infallible in matters of faith and morals and expects over a billion people to follow him (it's not allowed to be a woman) faithfully. In the past he used to order the torture and execution of dissidents, via a secret police known as the Holy Office. But in these days he just allows them to contract AIDS in africa. So, that's progress. Their ritual, i'm told, involves letting smoke from a chimney and the entire world erupting in joy.

In truth, the roman catholic world is much more complex than the cherished historical ritual seems to allow... and so it is in Islam...

[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?

My apologies, William the White, it appears that I misinterpreted your post by omitting the implied ["at that time"]. Indeed the predominantly Kurdish part of Iraq was effectively sheltered, in the main, by the enforcement of 'no-go zones'. I also suspect that the maintenance of those zones was a very expensive exercise.

Returning to the original point of this thread:

Does a regular soldier, sailor or pilot, of whatever rank, have the right to ignore an order? Didn't Horatio Nelson, the much lauded mariner, do just that at Copenhagen? Forget the result, think of the implication. I cannot prove it, but I'd guess that a significant proportion of those who have earned the honour of the Victoria Cross were not 'following orders'.

I'm trying to keep this as short as I can: To those who have served, or are serving, in the armed forces what would you prefer - some member of your troop who has concerns about a certain action; some member of your troop who thinks he's John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood; or a bloke who, regardless of his beliefs, will back you up in a difficult situation?

It's not much different from commerce or politics is it?

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst not directly taking on the current arguments/differences of opinion etc, I found this which backs up nicely my earlier post aboutthe futility of trying to sort this mess out. It's from a self description of what Taliban is all about: (from Googling around)

"We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years.

Instead of an election, their leader's legitimacy came from "Bay'ah" or oath of allegiance in imitation of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. On 4 April 1996, Mullah Omar had "the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed," taken from its shrine "for the first time in 60 years." Wrapping himself in the relic, he appeared on the roof of a building in the center of Kandahar while hundreds of Pashtun mullahs below shouted "Amir al-Mu'minin!" (Commander of the Faithful), in a de facto pledge of support.

Their is little the west could ever do against this form of " anti-modern" thinking that prevails in Afghanistan. This offers no solution or argumnt, just a seemingly hopeless one-sided battle when they see their cause as the will of Allah in a Muslim ruled environ.

Best not take religiously-based rituals too literally, Tango. They have history that applies legitimacy, but it doesn't necessarily mean the literal truth. The Taliban uses the ritual. But, in truth, even now Afghanistan is a complex web of regional, tribal and religious disunity, order and disorder.

One religion has a tiny group of unelected people that in secret determines a supreme leader who is infallible in matters of faith and morals and expects over a billion people to follow him (it's not allowed to be a woman) faithfully. In the past he used to order the torture and execution of dissidents, via a secret police known as the Holy Office. But in these days he just allows them to contract AIDS in africa. So, that's progress. Their ritual, i'm told, involves letting smoke from a chimney and the entire world erupting in joy.

In truth, the roman catholic world is much more complex than the cherished historical ritual seems to allow... and so it is in Islam...

I wasn't talking about any ritual WTW. I was talking about the thinking behind the Taliban and how the same will prevent any western nation from solving their internal problems. I also assume we are talking now, and I'm not sure how you equate the pacifist Christian religion of today with the zealous Muslimism of Afghanistan who want to live life as it was 1400 years ago. Not even sure why you went there at all.

[thebish]

I wasn't talking about any ritual WTW. I was talking about the thinking behind the Taliban and how the same will prevent any western nation from solving their internal problems. I also assume we are talking now, and I'm not sure how you equate the pacifist Christian religion of today with the zealous Muslimism of Afghanistan who want to live life as it was 1400 years ago. Not even sure why you went there at all.

to be fair to WTW - I think he was commenting on the middle part of your piece where you are (to be honest) talking about a ritual...

On 4 April 1996, Mullah Omar had "the Cloak of the Prophet Mohammed," taken from its shrine "for the first time in 60 years." Wrapping himself in the relic, he appeared on the roof of a building in the center of Kandahar while hundreds of Pashtun mullahs below shouted "Amir al-Mu'minin!" (Commander of the Faithful), in a de facto pledge of support.

I think WTW's parallels are quite striking - and certainly should make us cautious in our descriptions lest we paint the world too black and white...

[TANGODANCER]

In reality, I went a bit far with the copying section of the same article. I wasn't, repeat, wasnt, placing any emphasis on the rutual aspect therin. That's yours and Wtw's view, not mine. It just happened to be there. If there was any error it was in not cutting the second bit off. I think I made the point quite clearly of what I was saying. If you choose to look for other things then fine. The point remains that trying to solve Afghanistan's problems will never be anything but extremely difficult. Tis all I said.

[thebish]

In reality, I went a bit far with the copying section of the same article. I wasn't, repeat, wasnt, placing any emphasis on the rutual aspect therin. That's yours and Wtw's view, not mine. It just happened to be there. If there was any error it was in not cutting the second bit off. I think I made the point quite clearly of what I was saying. If you choose to look for other things then fine. The point remains that trying to solve Afghanistan's problems will never be anything but extremely difficult. Tis all I said.

that's fine tango - no real argument - but you can't really expect people to discern what bits of your posts you mean to be there and those you paste in by accident!

[TANGODANCER]

In reality, I went a bit far with the copying section of the same article. I wasn't, repeat, wasnt, placing any emphasis on the rutual aspect therin. That's yours and Wtw's view, not mine. It just happened to be there. If there was any error it was in not cutting the second bit off. I think I made the point quite clearly of what I was saying. If you choose to look for other things then fine. The point remains that trying to solve Afghanistan's problems will never be anything but extremely difficult. Tis all I said.

that's fine tango - no real argument - but you can't really expect people to discern what bits of your posts you mean to be there and those you paste in by accident!

Indeed I can't Bish. No argument. I do however, expect them to read the post for what it is, including the opening paragraph.

Whilst not directly taking on the current arguments/differences of opinion etc, I found this which backs up nicely my earlier post aboutthe futility of trying to sort this mess out. It's from a self description of what Taliban is all about: (from Googling around)

ps: At almost seventy, the only things I ever see in black and white are films like Casablanca, To Kill a Mocking Bird etc, and Bolton Wanderers (if you all a touch of blue shading in there).

[thebish]

ps: At almost seventy, the only things I ever see in black and white are films like Casablanca, To Kill a Mocking Bird etc, and Bolton Wanderers (if you all a touch of blue shading in there).

that's a lie Tango - everyone knows you watch Bolton with a rose-tint!

[TANGODANCER]

ps: At almost seventy, the only things I ever see in black and white are films like Casablanca, To Kill a Mocking Bird etc, and Bolton Wanderers (if you all a touch of blue shading in there).

that's a lie Tango - everyone knows you watch Bolton with a rose-tint!

Shaddup nitpicker.

[William the White]

For those genunely interested in the kurdish experience there's a festival of Kurdish film at the Cornerhouse in Manchester.

http://www.cornerhouse.org/film/seasons ... ivals.aspx

[Lord Kangana]

The real problem with all this is that the young who join the armed forces may have false ideas of what it's all about. Dressing up in combat gear, armed to the teeth ala Arnold Schwatzeneger and killing the baddies

I've never read such utterly appalling patronising drivel in one sentence in the whole of my life.

I know this seems incredibly late in the day, partly beause I've been avoiding this thread, but I have to answer this point specifically. I'm afraid, Bruce, that what Tango says has some grounding in truth. The American military did a study (probably about 20-25 years ago now) about war films/paraphernalia etc, and its affect on recruitment. Save to say it was a huge driving force (particularly John Wayne,allegedly). The evidence, as my hazy memory recalls, is in a book called "Acts of War" by Richard Holmes. Don't quote me, but I'm sure thats the source.

[Bruce Rioja]

There are two words, Kangana, that when used together at the start of a sentence can make me believe absolutely anything. Those two words are 'In America'.

[superjohnmcginlay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nort ... 551245.stm

Got sent down.