This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08032006/325/iraq-police-find-18-hanged-men-baghda...
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The bound and blindfold bodies of 18 men who had been hanged were found dumped in a minibus in Baghdad, police and hospital officials said on Wednesday.
Apparent victims of a "dirty war" being waged by sectarian armed factions, the identities of the men were unclear. Some bore signs of torture and other wounds, officials said.
"The medical report shows that all of them were hanged," a source at Baghdad's Yarmuk hospital said.
"We found a rope round the neck of one of the victims."
Some of the bodies, some bleeding, were seen by Reuters reporters at the hospital. They were dressed in civilian clothes and appeared to include young and middle-aged men.
Police and hospital officials, aware of the potential for sectarian anger if it becomes clear all are either Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims, said they had no clues to the victims' identities.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The bound and blindfold bodies of 18 men who had been hanged were found dumped in a minibus in Baghdad, police and hospital officials said on Wednesday.
Apparent victims of a "dirty war" being waged by sectarian armed factions, the identities of the men were unclear. Some bore signs of torture and other wounds, officials said.
"The medical report shows that all of them were hanged," a source at Baghdad's Yarmuk hospital said.
"We found a rope round the neck of one of the victims."
Some of the bodies, some bleeding, were seen by Reuters reporters at the hospital. They were dressed in civilian clothes and appeared to include young and middle-aged men.
Police and hospital officials, aware of the potential for sectarian anger if it becomes clear all are either Sunni or Shi'ite Muslims, said they had no clues to the victims' identities.
In reply to Fex Wazner: ugh. anyone spot the next Bosnia in the making?
The thing that upsets me about this is that there is no logic behind such hatred.
With Sadaam, he was the law, don't mess with him and you may stand a chance of not being tortured to death (slim I know)
Was Sadaam this indescriminate?
With Sadaam, he was the law, don't mess with him and you may stand a chance of not being tortured to death (slim I know)
Was Sadaam this indescriminate?
In reply to Fex Wazner:
The point is that the invasion and occupation have both been appallingly mis-managed. I recall a US analyst - who was in favour of the war - warning that "if we break it, we fix it."
They are great at breaking countries; terrible at fixing them.
I'm sure Bruce, Toby, JCM etc. will be along shortly to tell us that this is an inevitable process that Iraq must go through to acheive self-determination and democracy; but it's a counsel of despair. It could have, should have been handled better.
The point is that the invasion and occupation have both been appallingly mis-managed. I recall a US analyst - who was in favour of the war - warning that "if we break it, we fix it."
They are great at breaking countries; terrible at fixing them.
I'm sure Bruce, Toby, JCM etc. will be along shortly to tell us that this is an inevitable process that Iraq must go through to acheive self-determination and democracy; but it's a counsel of despair. It could have, should have been handled better.
In reply to Psychopathic_Barbie:
I think we should all be relatively relieved if Iraq 'only' develops into the next Bosnia. There are plausible outcomes much worse than that.
I think we should all be relatively relieved if Iraq 'only' develops into the next Bosnia. There are plausible outcomes much worse than that.
In reply to tobyfk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1725996,00.html
To qoute "The US ambassador to Baghdad conceded yesterday that the Iraq invasion had opened a Pandora's box of sectarian conflicts which could lead to a regional war and the rise of religious extremists who "would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
> I think we should all be relatively relieved if Iraq 'only' develops into the next Bosnia. There are plausible outcomes much worse than that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1725996,00.html
To qoute "The US ambassador to Baghdad conceded yesterday that the Iraq invasion had opened a Pandora's box of sectarian conflicts which could lead to a regional war and the rise of religious extremists who "would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play".
In reply to Fex Wazner:
You have a country that for 30(?) years was a dictatorship, now they have the freedom to hate each other. This sort of thing, distasteful as it is will happen. Things like this happened in N Ireland for 30 years and to an extent still do.
I know that it is distressing watching our fellow men being like this but they have to work it out. It is up to the civic leaders in the country to address their people and stop this.
God is not a bad thing, but people take "Him" a bit too seriously and are sometimes a lot too literal when it comes to books.
"It is always darkest before the dawn"
You have a country that for 30(?) years was a dictatorship, now they have the freedom to hate each other. This sort of thing, distasteful as it is will happen. Things like this happened in N Ireland for 30 years and to an extent still do.
I know that it is distressing watching our fellow men being like this but they have to work it out. It is up to the civic leaders in the country to address their people and stop this.
God is not a bad thing, but people take "Him" a bit too seriously and are sometimes a lot too literal when it comes to books.
"It is always darkest before the dawn"
In reply to flashbongo:
Yep, here we go.
It's the utter defeatism of this line that infuriates me - seems "we" have the means and the will to invade; yet not to control the outcome.
"We" shrug and watch the chaos afterwards saying it's historically inevitable; the sectarian divisions were always there (which is a more sophisticated way of saying "WTF, they're Arabs..."); and anyway it's better than Saddam's rule. While ignoring the fact that our own actions contribute to the bloodbath.
> This sort of thing, distasteful as it is will happen.
Yep, here we go.
It's the utter defeatism of this line that infuriates me - seems "we" have the means and the will to invade; yet not to control the outcome.
"We" shrug and watch the chaos afterwards saying it's historically inevitable; the sectarian divisions were always there (which is a more sophisticated way of saying "WTF, they're Arabs..."); and anyway it's better than Saddam's rule. While ignoring the fact that our own actions contribute to the bloodbath.
In reply to flashbongo:
Speaking of Churchill and Kurds...
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He apparently subscribed to the view that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [to] spread a lively terror".
We reap what we sow when we lead by example.
Speaking of Churchill and Kurds...
Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He apparently subscribed to the view that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [to] spread a lively terror".
We reap what we sow when we lead by example.
In reply to flashbongo:
(I don't want to hijack the thread, but no, the original was:
'The time is sick and out of joint. Many things have reached their height: and it is a wise adage that tells us, the darkest hour is nearest the dawn.'
I quoted it at the end of a chapter on industrial Victorian England in my Peak book.)
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> Oh, is that who said it?
>
> I thought it was Churchill?
> Oh, is that who said it?
>
> I thought it was Churchill?
(I don't want to hijack the thread, but no, the original was:
'The time is sick and out of joint. Many things have reached their height: and it is a wise adage that tells us, the darkest hour is nearest the dawn.'
I quoted it at the end of a chapter on industrial Victorian England in my Peak book.)
In reply to KeithW:
KeithW, If you lived in a country where you were in dread of what would happen to your family because you are from one faction, and 'they' the other faction got better jobs, pay, medical attention, schools, etc, you would feel bitter.
If the fear was removed and you were of the mindset to 'have a go'....
That is what is happening there, it is not "WTF, they're Arabs". HOW DARE YOU!
People living together have to find a way to live. If you are old enough you may remember we in the UK had riots in London and Bristol and other places, this is the same thing. It is the environment that is different.
It is not defeatism to think that this will sort itself out in time given the correct environment. Look at what is happening in N Ireland? Is it not getting better? Did it not take both sides to give a little?
KeithW, If you lived in a country where you were in dread of what would happen to your family because you are from one faction, and 'they' the other faction got better jobs, pay, medical attention, schools, etc, you would feel bitter.
If the fear was removed and you were of the mindset to 'have a go'....
That is what is happening there, it is not "WTF, they're Arabs". HOW DARE YOU!
People living together have to find a way to live. If you are old enough you may remember we in the UK had riots in London and Bristol and other places, this is the same thing. It is the environment that is different.
It is not defeatism to think that this will sort itself out in time given the correct environment. Look at what is happening in N Ireland? Is it not getting better? Did it not take both sides to give a little?
In reply to Simon White:
I was un-aware of that fact. However that was a while ago.
I was un-aware of that fact. However that was a while ago.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
My point is that atleast with a dictatorship there is more structure and logic behind such actions.
The major question to me is 'is it better to have the right to say/think what you like and have a random malitia kill you or is it better to say/think these things although you know it is against the law and have the government kill you?'
Is it better to have a death machine with a system or just constant anarchy and bloodbath?
My point is that atleast with a dictatorship there is more structure and logic behind such actions.
The major question to me is 'is it better to have the right to say/think what you like and have a random malitia kill you or is it better to say/think these things although you know it is against the law and have the government kill you?'
Is it better to have a death machine with a system or just constant anarchy and bloodbath?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
" it is a wise adage that tells us, the darkest hour is nearest the dawn.'
"
but getting dark can also mean there is one "$£%^& of a storm about to break.
" it is a wise adage that tells us, the darkest hour is nearest the dawn.'
"
but getting dark can also mean there is one "$£%^& of a storm about to break.
In reply to Psychopathic_Barbie:
I think Ruskin, not long after Carlyle, said more or less exactly that in a lecture he gave called 'Storm Cloud over the Nineteenth Century', or some such.
I think Ruskin, not long after Carlyle, said more or less exactly that in a lecture he gave called 'Storm Cloud over the Nineteenth Century', or some such.
In reply to KeithW:
You seem to be forgetting the chronology of it all.... WW1, Ottoman Empire (OE) part of the Central powers alliance and at war with Britain, the Middle East front as part of this war (Lawrence, arab rebellion against the Turks in return for promises of independence after the war), defeat of and collapse of OE (which included what we now call Iraq but at the time was made up of 3 bits of the OE)...
League of Nations mandate for France and Britain concerning the Middle East (Sykes Picot betrayal)... Faisal set up in independent Iraq after being kicked out of Syria by French.... gradual build up of Arab Nationalism in the region with ramifications in Iraq. WW2 and various changes leading to Baathist (lay, progressive, pan-arab) revolution and finally Saddam Hussein.
Build up of dictatorship, aggression against Iran (100,000s of deaths), repression against Kurds and others within Iraq, aggression against Kuwait and international intervention, but Saddam left in power. Continued repression within Iraq (massacres of marsh arabs etc).
Increased islamic terrorism throughout the world (in Algeria 150,000 deaths) the New York attacks. USA reaction in Afghanistan. The start of a long protracted period of negotiations between Saddam and UN and finally a series of UN ultimatums resulting in the present armed intervention.
What is happening now is the result of all these events, a mixture of the continued resistance of Saddam's supporters related to Sunni/Shia problems, islamic extremist destabilisation and general gangsterism and arab/west conflict, to present things as black and white as you do in this last post somewhat dishonest to me.
*********************
Meanwhile, no one seems to pose the real question: "A qui profite le crime?"
Saudi Arabia's oil is worth nearly 3 times what it was until recently... Ben Laden isn't Mexican. Just a coincidence perhaps
You seem to be forgetting the chronology of it all.... WW1, Ottoman Empire (OE) part of the Central powers alliance and at war with Britain, the Middle East front as part of this war (Lawrence, arab rebellion against the Turks in return for promises of independence after the war), defeat of and collapse of OE (which included what we now call Iraq but at the time was made up of 3 bits of the OE)...
League of Nations mandate for France and Britain concerning the Middle East (Sykes Picot betrayal)... Faisal set up in independent Iraq after being kicked out of Syria by French.... gradual build up of Arab Nationalism in the region with ramifications in Iraq. WW2 and various changes leading to Baathist (lay, progressive, pan-arab) revolution and finally Saddam Hussein.
Build up of dictatorship, aggression against Iran (100,000s of deaths), repression against Kurds and others within Iraq, aggression against Kuwait and international intervention, but Saddam left in power. Continued repression within Iraq (massacres of marsh arabs etc).
Increased islamic terrorism throughout the world (in Algeria 150,000 deaths) the New York attacks. USA reaction in Afghanistan. The start of a long protracted period of negotiations between Saddam and UN and finally a series of UN ultimatums resulting in the present armed intervention.
What is happening now is the result of all these events, a mixture of the continued resistance of Saddam's supporters related to Sunni/Shia problems, islamic extremist destabilisation and general gangsterism and arab/west conflict, to present things as black and white as you do in this last post somewhat dishonest to me.
*********************
Meanwhile, no one seems to pose the real question: "A qui profite le crime?"
Saudi Arabia's oil is worth nearly 3 times what it was until recently... Ben Laden isn't Mexican. Just a coincidence perhaps
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I'm pretty sure that Churchill also used the phrase, doubtless drawing on Carlyle.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
When i lectured at college in Leeds, we had some Iraqis who came over to do our courses. They spoke quite freely about life under Saddam and it didn't seem half as bad as our media made out.
Apparently it was only if you voiced your antagonism to the regime that you had to worry. For the vast majority of people life was pretty normal.
We had Iranians too, and they said pretty much the same thing about their country (this was the mid 90's).
>
> Was Sadaam this indescriminate?
> Was Sadaam this indescriminate?
When i lectured at college in Leeds, we had some Iraqis who came over to do our courses. They spoke quite freely about life under Saddam and it didn't seem half as bad as our media made out.
Apparently it was only if you voiced your antagonism to the regime that you had to worry. For the vast majority of people life was pretty normal.
We had Iranians too, and they said pretty much the same thing about their country (this was the mid 90's).
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
That's not my point.
All the history was known before the invasion, and there were plenty of warnings even from some who supported it that it would create an unholy mess and we'd better be ready to deal with it. But the more thoughtful ones were ignored; the flag-wavers declared 'Mission Accomplished' and the whole place slid slowly into civil war.
They were warned, but they did it anyway. They bear at least some responsibility for the mess.
> (In reply to KeithW)
>
> You seem to be forgetting the chronology of it all
>
> You seem to be forgetting the chronology of it all
That's not my point.
All the history was known before the invasion, and there were plenty of warnings even from some who supported it that it would create an unholy mess and we'd better be ready to deal with it. But the more thoughtful ones were ignored; the flag-wavers declared 'Mission Accomplished' and the whole place slid slowly into civil war.
They were warned, but they did it anyway. They bear at least some responsibility for the mess.
In reply to various people:
The only trouble with this adage is that it isn't true. The hour before
dawn is likely to be the _coldest_ but not the darkest.
> "it is a wise adage that tells us, the darkest hour is nearest the dawn."
The only trouble with this adage is that it isn't true. The hour before
dawn is likely to be the _coldest_ but not the darkest.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And if you are working, the hour you are most likely to have an accident.
And if you are working, the hour you are most likely to have an accident.
In reply to flashbongo:
and if you are dead and your family dead by the actions of the do-gooders then the dawn will not come
and if you are dead and your family dead by the actions of the do-gooders then the dawn will not come
In reply to Fex Wazner:
Whilst it is deeply shocking -- is it worse than the murder and maiming that went on in the Sierra Leone civil war, when many atrocities were carried out by 'child' soldiers? In that conflict Western involvement was noticeable by its absence!
Whilst the nature of murders is distressing, and are without justification or excuse, sadly many of the causes of the current strife in Iraq can be laid at British politicians' doors.
Iraq was a monumental cock up waiting to happen, ever since it was 'created' following the break up of the Turkish Empire after WW1 when the British and French effectively carved up the region into their own spheres of infuence. It is and always will be a classic 'buffer state' who's fate will ultimately be decided by the superpowers and more powerful neighbours.
It was only prevented from descending into civil war after WW2 when the corrupt monarchy was replaced by the Nationalists who became Saddam's Ba'ath party. Then the Russians backed Saddam and his odious regime during the cold war whilst the West cosied up to the Shah in Iran and the Saudi despots. When the West lost their ally after the Iranian revolution, and the Russians had their hands full in Afghanistan, the West then supported Saddam's odious regime, to isolate the Ayatollahs, and simultaneously encouraged the Afghan Mujihaddeen against the Russians.
The West's failure to deal properly with Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait due to 'not wanting to be seen to be involved in regime change', and Dubyas decision to do what his Daddy didn't do (and not having the brains to do the job properly) has just made matters worse.
Sadly Iraq is destined to be unstable for many years with or without continued involvement by US and British Troops on the ground.
The tribal ethnic and regligious hatreds are now being used by evil men to further their own ends. Little now stands in the way of a break up of Iraq as we know it into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish autonomous regions, coupled with some dirty ethnic cleansing -- fanned by the religious fanatics who cannot see the evil that they do in the name of whatever warped interpretation of god they purport to believe in.
How the peoples of Iraq can become reconciled is something only they can achieve. This ungodly mess is the result of outsiders meddling in their affairs as part of a desire for global and regional dominance.
No one sadly can claim any moral high ground, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
The real worry is the destabilisation of the whole region, which has the potential for escalation into a global conflict. Whilst the superpowers have the ability to inflict mass destruction on anyone who opposes them, as with all great empires in the past, their inability to command the goodwill of those under their sphere of influence over an extended periond will inevitably lead to their destruction.
If history has taught us anything, it is that eventually the most powerful are humbled, and power is only transitory.
Evil men do evil things -- but old father time is a great leveller! No man is immortal, and anyone who preaches immortality is a liar and a fool. Those who believe in immortality are even bigger fools!
Whilst it is deeply shocking -- is it worse than the murder and maiming that went on in the Sierra Leone civil war, when many atrocities were carried out by 'child' soldiers? In that conflict Western involvement was noticeable by its absence!
Whilst the nature of murders is distressing, and are without justification or excuse, sadly many of the causes of the current strife in Iraq can be laid at British politicians' doors.
Iraq was a monumental cock up waiting to happen, ever since it was 'created' following the break up of the Turkish Empire after WW1 when the British and French effectively carved up the region into their own spheres of infuence. It is and always will be a classic 'buffer state' who's fate will ultimately be decided by the superpowers and more powerful neighbours.
It was only prevented from descending into civil war after WW2 when the corrupt monarchy was replaced by the Nationalists who became Saddam's Ba'ath party. Then the Russians backed Saddam and his odious regime during the cold war whilst the West cosied up to the Shah in Iran and the Saudi despots. When the West lost their ally after the Iranian revolution, and the Russians had their hands full in Afghanistan, the West then supported Saddam's odious regime, to isolate the Ayatollahs, and simultaneously encouraged the Afghan Mujihaddeen against the Russians.
The West's failure to deal properly with Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait due to 'not wanting to be seen to be involved in regime change', and Dubyas decision to do what his Daddy didn't do (and not having the brains to do the job properly) has just made matters worse.
Sadly Iraq is destined to be unstable for many years with or without continued involvement by US and British Troops on the ground.
The tribal ethnic and regligious hatreds are now being used by evil men to further their own ends. Little now stands in the way of a break up of Iraq as we know it into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish autonomous regions, coupled with some dirty ethnic cleansing -- fanned by the religious fanatics who cannot see the evil that they do in the name of whatever warped interpretation of god they purport to believe in.
How the peoples of Iraq can become reconciled is something only they can achieve. This ungodly mess is the result of outsiders meddling in their affairs as part of a desire for global and regional dominance.
No one sadly can claim any moral high ground, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
The real worry is the destabilisation of the whole region, which has the potential for escalation into a global conflict. Whilst the superpowers have the ability to inflict mass destruction on anyone who opposes them, as with all great empires in the past, their inability to command the goodwill of those under their sphere of influence over an extended periond will inevitably lead to their destruction.
If history has taught us anything, it is that eventually the most powerful are humbled, and power is only transitory.
Evil men do evil things -- but old father time is a great leveller! No man is immortal, and anyone who preaches immortality is a liar and a fool. Those who believe in immortality are even bigger fools!
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Damn! -- you posted whilst I was typing away. You covered many of my historical points quite succinctly - and probably with a degree more accuracy!
Damn! -- you posted whilst I was typing away. You covered many of my historical points quite succinctly - and probably with a degree more accuracy!
In reply to flashbongo:
I thought that was 3am'ish?
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> And if you are working, the hour you are most likely to have an accident.
> And if you are working, the hour you are most likely to have an accident.
I thought that was 3am'ish?
In reply to Alan Stark:
Do you reckon a conflict bewteen the West and Iarn, would cause a similar mess as Iraq?
Is there anything to be learned from Iraq that we did not know already?
Fex.
Do you reckon a conflict bewteen the West and Iarn, would cause a similar mess as Iraq?
Is there anything to be learned from Iraq that we did not know already?
Fex.
In reply to dissonance:
Is it? Well it is all the same at that time of day! If you have to work at that time, it just sucks!
Is it? Well it is all the same at that time of day! If you have to work at that time, it just sucks!
In reply to Fex Wazner:
I don't think they expected such a mess as there is in Iraq, but I don't think it was obvious that there would be one either. There are also reports that things aren't as bad as seen from afar and that not all Iraq affected, followed by reports saying the opposite...
I'm also convinced that both Bush and Blair expected that war would not be required, they expected Saddam to back down... they didn't expect the Chirac wild canon which lead Saddam to believe he could call the bluff. Chirac has a very heavy responsibility IMO.
I don't think they expected such a mess as there is in Iraq, but I don't think it was obvious that there would be one either. There are also reports that things aren't as bad as seen from afar and that not all Iraq affected, followed by reports saying the opposite...
I'm also convinced that both Bush and Blair expected that war would not be required, they expected Saddam to back down... they didn't expect the Chirac wild canon which lead Saddam to believe he could call the bluff. Chirac has a very heavy responsibility IMO.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Well I'm no fan of Chirac but he's way behind Bush & Blair in the blame stakes as far as I can see.
> Chirac has a very heavy responsibility IMO.
Well I'm no fan of Chirac but he's way behind Bush & Blair in the blame stakes as far as I can see.
In reply to DougG:
Other countries followed his lead but he set up the opposition group that let Saddam think the West would let him off the hook again - Chirac was convinced that the US and British governments would back down. The warlike language he used until the change of tactic was, in true Gallic fashion, just saber rattling... I suspect he himself was truly rattled when he saw that Bush Jnr was serious about military intervention.
We've had this discussion before but I still have seen nothing to change my opinion that if the UN had maintained a united front then Saddam would have accepted a deal rather than lose all.
Just if-its, of course.
Other countries followed his lead but he set up the opposition group that let Saddam think the West would let him off the hook again - Chirac was convinced that the US and British governments would back down. The warlike language he used until the change of tactic was, in true Gallic fashion, just saber rattling... I suspect he himself was truly rattled when he saw that Bush Jnr was serious about military intervention.
We've had this discussion before but I still have seen nothing to change my opinion that if the UN had maintained a united front then Saddam would have accepted a deal rather than lose all.
Just if-its, of course.
In reply to Alan Stark:
I wouldn't disagree with this at all but, unless one puts the blame for WW1 wholly on the Franco-British alliance then, they cannot really be held entirely to blame for fighting Middle East front once the Turks were at war with them - the Suez Canal had to be defended and oil supplies secured, what else could they have done during WW1?
Afterwards someone had to fill the vacuum after the collapse of the already disintegrating, and unlamented, Ottoman empire. The British handed over power from their mandate in Iraq quite promptly and only hung on in Palestine because of the Arab/Jewish conflict their - they got no thanks from either party, it can't have been much of a money spinner.
Many refer to the "British colonial" influence as if it was a straightforward invasion of existing independent countries in the region (and the naieve believe this without checking out their history), but this was hardly the case.
The similar "British gassed as much as Saddam" propaganda gambit (probably originating in the same private "communications agency" like so much politics these days) is dishonest too - at the time gas weapons were used extensively, in Europe even more than elsewhere (both my grandfathers were gassed in France, one died the other recovered) so the marginal use in Iraq at much the same period is not really comparable with the gassing of a whole town in the latter part of the 20th century. Goebbels would have appreciated the spin though
> Iraq was a monumental cock up waiting to happen, ever since it was 'created' following the break up of the Turkish Empire after WW1 when the British and French effectively carved up the region into their own spheres of infuence.
I wouldn't disagree with this at all but, unless one puts the blame for WW1 wholly on the Franco-British alliance then, they cannot really be held entirely to blame for fighting Middle East front once the Turks were at war with them - the Suez Canal had to be defended and oil supplies secured, what else could they have done during WW1?
Afterwards someone had to fill the vacuum after the collapse of the already disintegrating, and unlamented, Ottoman empire. The British handed over power from their mandate in Iraq quite promptly and only hung on in Palestine because of the Arab/Jewish conflict their - they got no thanks from either party, it can't have been much of a money spinner.
Many refer to the "British colonial" influence as if it was a straightforward invasion of existing independent countries in the region (and the naieve believe this without checking out their history), but this was hardly the case.
The similar "British gassed as much as Saddam" propaganda gambit (probably originating in the same private "communications agency" like so much politics these days) is dishonest too - at the time gas weapons were used extensively, in Europe even more than elsewhere (both my grandfathers were gassed in France, one died the other recovered) so the marginal use in Iraq at much the same period is not really comparable with the gassing of a whole town in the latter part of the 20th century. Goebbels would have appreciated the spin though
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
A very good point re. the gas issue, but it's perhaps worth pointing out that when Saddam gassed those people in Halabja (March 1988) he was still regarded by the West as an ally, or at least less of a danger than Iran.
A very good point re. the gas issue, but it's perhaps worth pointing out that when Saddam gassed those people in Halabja (March 1988) he was still regarded by the West as an ally, or at least less of a danger than Iran.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Agreed - Churchill is quoted out of context there. He was talking about tear (CS) gas - NOT lethal gas. Which we are quite happy to use on our own citizens.
> The similar "British gassed as much as Saddam" propaganda gambit (probably originating in the same private "communications agency" like so much politics these days) is dishonest too
Agreed - Churchill is quoted out of context there. He was talking about tear (CS) gas - NOT lethal gas. Which we are quite happy to use on our own citizens.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No Chirac knew the likely outcome of a war in Iraq and the quality of the justification for it. That is why he did all he could to stop it. He carries very little blame most if not all of that ends up with Bush, Cheany, rumsfeld et al. I don't think Blair could have stoped it. However if we had done the right thing and remained under the juristriction of the security council the costs to the US of going alone would have been higher and the situation might now be close to resolution. Instead due to his crass spinless stupidity we are looking at another far worse war with Iran kicking off in 12-18 months. At which point those of us that don't live within walking distance of a crag can forgett about climbing. Going to war with Iraq was the worst policy decision made by a UK government since munich and could yet prove to be even worse than that fubar.
No Chirac knew the likely outcome of a war in Iraq and the quality of the justification for it. That is why he did all he could to stop it. He carries very little blame most if not all of that ends up with Bush, Cheany, rumsfeld et al. I don't think Blair could have stoped it. However if we had done the right thing and remained under the juristriction of the security council the costs to the US of going alone would have been higher and the situation might now be close to resolution. Instead due to his crass spinless stupidity we are looking at another far worse war with Iran kicking off in 12-18 months. At which point those of us that don't live within walking distance of a crag can forgett about climbing. Going to war with Iraq was the worst policy decision made by a UK government since munich and could yet prove to be even worse than that fubar.
In reply to KeithW:
No I think we used musterd gas quite liberaly out there. It wasn't accepted usage at the time either the convetions of war forbid its use however they only aplied to those likely to respond in kind.
No I think we used musterd gas quite liberaly out there. It wasn't accepted usage at the time either the convetions of war forbid its use however they only aplied to those likely to respond in kind.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No the US was set on war they wouldn't have taken yes for an answer as was shown several times in the run up to the war when sadam complied with all the UN's conditions. The argument that he hadn't was solely based on the existance of WMD. As they didn't exist your whole argument is a gorbelian big lie.
No the US was set on war they wouldn't have taken yes for an answer as was shown several times in the run up to the war when sadam complied with all the UN's conditions. The argument that he hadn't was solely based on the existance of WMD. As they didn't exist your whole argument is a gorbelian big lie.
In reply to Fex Wazner:
No it would be far worse.
No we knew it all before we started. It is why anybody who knew anything about foreign policy was against it from the start.
> (In reply to Alan Stark)
>
> Do you reckon a conflict bewteen the West and Iarn, would cause a similar mess as Iraq?
>
> Do you reckon a conflict bewteen the West and Iarn, would cause a similar mess as Iraq?
No it would be far worse.
>
> Is there anything to be learned from Iraq that we did not know already?
> Is there anything to be learned from Iraq that we did not know already?
No we knew it all before we started. It is why anybody who knew anything about foreign policy was against it from the start.
>
> Fex.
> Fex.
In reply to Simon White:
Chemical weapons were used by the Biritish against the kurds, in Tikrit I think.
> (In reply to flashbongo)
>
> Speaking of Churchill and Kurds...
>
> Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He apparently subscribed to the view that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [to] spread a lively terror".
>
> We reap what we sow when we lead by example.
>
> Speaking of Churchill and Kurds...
>
> Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He apparently subscribed to the view that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [to] spread a lively terror".
>
> We reap what we sow when we lead by example.
Chemical weapons were used by the Biritish against the kurds, in Tikrit I think.
In reply to sloper: And it was mustard gas not CS.
In reply to davidwright:
Mustard gas was used extensively in WW1, as I pointed out above both my Grandads had a dose. It was "outlawed" by convention later on.
If what you say about Chirac were true how do you explain French support for threats against Iraq in the UN until it became clear that Bush was serious?
In reality he is a politician who was in great domestic difficulty at the time and his change of heart was another of his many "smart moves" to save his skin... there was also a lot of money involved, owed to France (the Iraqi air-force being a mixture of Soviet and French aircraft) and personal ties with Saddam going way back to when Chirac was Prime Minister as opposed to President now.
Your mention of Munich is amusing in the context of the general slant of your posts
Mustard gas was used extensively in WW1, as I pointed out above both my Grandads had a dose. It was "outlawed" by convention later on.
If what you say about Chirac were true how do you explain French support for threats against Iraq in the UN until it became clear that Bush was serious?
In reality he is a politician who was in great domestic difficulty at the time and his change of heart was another of his many "smart moves" to save his skin... there was also a lot of money involved, owed to France (the Iraqi air-force being a mixture of Soviet and French aircraft) and personal ties with Saddam going way back to when Chirac was Prime Minister as opposed to President now.
Your mention of Munich is amusing in the context of the general slant of your posts
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
ie. At the time we used it in Iraq
real politic, nobody wants to anoy the yanks unless they have to. Chirac draged his feet all along but went with the flow while it was just diplomatic posturing when it looked like haveing real consequences the reluctant aquesence turned into real opposition. BTW the US needed 9 votes and no's from none of the perminant members they never had more than 5 with 3 perminents objecting. The clear and settled will of the council was that millitry force should not be used which is why the issue was never put to a vote. Blair blamed it on Chirac to obscure this behind an anti-french retoric. To claim that france was responsible is gorbelian history.
No it is a genuine belif that the Iraq war was one of the worst decisions in this countries history. We have already killed more iraqi's than Sadam. We went to war in Iraq to appease a forgein power hell bent on a war that was against our interests. To see the relivence of the analogy requires enough understanding of history to see through the general equation of sadams iraq with 1930's germany (which was always total pish put forward by warmongers to obscure their aims) and see that it could more acurately be equated with checkoslovakia.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> Mustard gas was used extensively in WW1, as I pointed out above both my Grandads had a dose. It was "outlawed" by convention later on.
>
> Mustard gas was used extensively in WW1, as I pointed out above both my Grandads had a dose. It was "outlawed" by convention later on.
ie. At the time we used it in Iraq
>
> If what you say about Chirac were true how do you explain French support for threats against Iraq in the UN until it became clear that Bush was serious?
> If what you say about Chirac were true how do you explain French support for threats against Iraq in the UN until it became clear that Bush was serious?
real politic, nobody wants to anoy the yanks unless they have to. Chirac draged his feet all along but went with the flow while it was just diplomatic posturing when it looked like haveing real consequences the reluctant aquesence turned into real opposition. BTW the US needed 9 votes and no's from none of the perminant members they never had more than 5 with 3 perminents objecting. The clear and settled will of the council was that millitry force should not be used which is why the issue was never put to a vote. Blair blamed it on Chirac to obscure this behind an anti-french retoric. To claim that france was responsible is gorbelian history.
>
> Your mention of Munich is amusing in the context of the general slant of your posts
No it is a genuine belif that the Iraq war was one of the worst decisions in this countries history. We have already killed more iraqi's than Sadam. We went to war in Iraq to appease a forgein power hell bent on a war that was against our interests. To see the relivence of the analogy requires enough understanding of history to see through the general equation of sadams iraq with 1930's germany (which was always total pish put forward by warmongers to obscure their aims) and see that it could more acurately be equated with checkoslovakia.
In reply to KeithW:
Do you mean me? If so I think the opposite: this is clearly the most dangerous thing that could happen if Iraq is to have any type of future which is exactly why that mosque was targetted.
I agree completely with that.
> I'm sure Bruce, Toby, JCM etc. will be along shortly to tell us that this is an inevitable process that Iraq must go through to acheive self-determination and democracy; but it's a counsel of despair.
Do you mean me? If so I think the opposite: this is clearly the most dangerous thing that could happen if Iraq is to have any type of future which is exactly why that mosque was targetted.
> It could have, should have been handled better.
I agree completely with that.
In reply to davidwright:
The more I look at this the more I think that it's not going to happen for so many different reasons. The Iranian have the West beat already. It's "Nixon to China" or nothing.
> Instead due to his crass spinless stupidity we are looking at another far worse war with Iran kicking off in 12-18 months.
The more I look at this the more I think that it's not going to happen for so many different reasons. The Iranian have the West beat already. It's "Nixon to China" or nothing.
In reply to Anonymous:
Apologist for who?
It's not Iraq that should be compared to nazi Germany, but green fascism to the black or brown varieties. The Iraq campaign is a side issue, part of a much bigger struggle which is just starting. Appeasement didn't work in the 30s and it won't work now, it may be hard and is certainly unpleasant but Blair and Bush are merely drawing lessons from history.
In 36 Hitler could have been beaten in a limited war - he admitted it himself: appeasement, as proposed by Chirac and the many hindsighters here, lead to WW2. The arguments used for not facing up to fascism then were exactly the same as those being used now. No one likes a war but I would have thought that the lessons of history should have taught us that sometimes it becomes inevitable.
It's no longer just in Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan and other "far away places" killing "far away dark skinned people" but in New York, Madrid and London. I'm surprised some don't seem to have noticed.
Apologist for who?
It's not Iraq that should be compared to nazi Germany, but green fascism to the black or brown varieties. The Iraq campaign is a side issue, part of a much bigger struggle which is just starting. Appeasement didn't work in the 30s and it won't work now, it may be hard and is certainly unpleasant but Blair and Bush are merely drawing lessons from history.
In 36 Hitler could have been beaten in a limited war - he admitted it himself: appeasement, as proposed by Chirac and the many hindsighters here, lead to WW2. The arguments used for not facing up to fascism then were exactly the same as those being used now. No one likes a war but I would have thought that the lessons of history should have taught us that sometimes it becomes inevitable.
It's no longer just in Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan and other "far away places" killing "far away dark skinned people" but in New York, Madrid and London. I'm surprised some don't seem to have noticed.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: If your initial point had validity the CIA eta al wouldn't have supported SH from the mid 70's through to 1990.
In reply to TobyA:
Toby, sorry to have prejudged you.
I shouldn't have personalised the issue at all anyway; so sorry too to Bruce and John.
> Do you mean me? If so I think the opposite:
Toby, sorry to have prejudged you.
I shouldn't have personalised the issue at all anyway; so sorry too to Bruce and John.
In reply to TobyA:
Rationally, that must be true. Fingers crossed, anyway, as I am far too close for comfort.
Might Israel do something unilaterally?
But moving the chess game ahead some more moves, and as discussed elsewhere: what if the US clear out of Iraq in ~2007 and the Iranis move in to support the Shias? Can the west tolerate that high a proportion of global oil reserves (19%) being controlled by an overtly-hostile power? What if the Irani's then drifted over into Kuwait (19>28%). A bunch of chubby diabetics in mirror shades, white dresses and Porsche Cayennes aren't going to hold them up long.
> The more I look at this the more I think that it's not going to happen for so many different reasons.
Rationally, that must be true. Fingers crossed, anyway, as I am far too close for comfort.
Might Israel do something unilaterally?
But moving the chess game ahead some more moves, and as discussed elsewhere: what if the US clear out of Iraq in ~2007 and the Iranis move in to support the Shias? Can the west tolerate that high a proportion of global oil reserves (19%) being controlled by an overtly-hostile power? What if the Irani's then drifted over into Kuwait (19>28%). A bunch of chubby diabetics in mirror shades, white dresses and Porsche Cayennes aren't going to hold them up long.
In reply to tobyfk:
I don't think they can because they would need to overfly Iraqi - hence US - airspace. The US wouldn't allow itself to be implicated in something it has no control of.
Also the Iranian 'wiping Israel off the map' is just chat for those who don't own maps. There is nothing you could ever hit in Israel without massively effecting the Palestinian population as well.
Hence, the no choice bit - its "Nixon to China" time. Christopher Hitchen wrote an article on this that I actually agreed with! I'll find the link when I get to work.
> Might Israel do something unilaterally?
I don't think they can because they would need to overfly Iraqi - hence US - airspace. The US wouldn't allow itself to be implicated in something it has no control of.
Also the Iranian 'wiping Israel off the map' is just chat for those who don't own maps. There is nothing you could ever hit in Israel without massively effecting the Palestinian population as well.
> But moving the chess game ahead some more moves, and as discussed elsewhere: what if the US clear out of Iraq in ~2007 and the Iranis move in to support the Shias? Can the west tolerate that high a proportion of global oil reserves (19%) being controlled by an overtly-hostile power? What if the Irani's then drifted over into Kuwait (19>28%). A bunch of chubby diabetics in mirror shades, white dresses and Porsche Cayennes aren't going to hold them up long.
Hence, the no choice bit - its "Nixon to China" time. Christopher Hitchen wrote an article on this that I actually agreed with! I'll find the link when I get to work.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The Iraq campaign was never anything to do with a struggle against Islamic extremism. (Of course, it is now. Is that what you mean?)
> The Iraq campaign is a side issue, part of a much bigger struggle which is just starting. Appeasement didn't work in the 30s and it won't work now, it may be hard and is certainly unpleasant but Blair and Bush are merely drawing lessons from history.
The Iraq campaign was never anything to do with a struggle against Islamic extremism. (Of course, it is now. Is that what you mean?)
In reply to sloper:
Come now, you know this is just another propaganda soundbite, like the "british gassed like Saddam" or "just a continued British colonial adventure in Iraq"...
Conditions in the 70s, the choices available, the situation with Islam, the cold war, even Saddam's own horror level were quite different to the present day. One day Britain was at war against the Bolsheviks, less than 30 years later they were allied with them against Hitler... times change as you know full well.
Anyway, even if this wasn't the case why on earth should one be opposed to a government changing it's mind in the right direction? Are they still the same people in charge even? Isn't democracy supposed to be about changing governments that get it wrong? If not then you are saying that all future governments, of whatever ilk, would be morally obliged to maintain the same policies as the present one?
You can do better than that.
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) If your initial point had validity the CIA eta al wouldn't have supported SH from the mid 70's through to 1990.
Come now, you know this is just another propaganda soundbite, like the "british gassed like Saddam" or "just a continued British colonial adventure in Iraq"...
Conditions in the 70s, the choices available, the situation with Islam, the cold war, even Saddam's own horror level were quite different to the present day. One day Britain was at war against the Bolsheviks, less than 30 years later they were allied with them against Hitler... times change as you know full well.
Anyway, even if this wasn't the case why on earth should one be opposed to a government changing it's mind in the right direction? Are they still the same people in charge even? Isn't democracy supposed to be about changing governments that get it wrong? If not then you are saying that all future governments, of whatever ilk, would be morally obliged to maintain the same policies as the present one?
You can do better than that.
In reply to DougG:
It was a next step after the action against the Talibans just next door - I agree that Saddam is by no means an islamic extremist, he just uses it like many others. As I've said too many times already I think that the Iraq step is just part of the build up of pressure on the real targets just a little further South.
The ultimate objective is to cut the finances behind the islamists which come essentially from oil revenues... ironically the latter have been multiplied by three in the short term due to the rise in the oil price that the intervention has caused... one would hope this was allowed for in the planning stage, although it's difficult not to wonder a bit
It was a next step after the action against the Talibans just next door - I agree that Saddam is by no means an islamic extremist, he just uses it like many others. As I've said too many times already I think that the Iraq step is just part of the build up of pressure on the real targets just a little further South.
The ultimate objective is to cut the finances behind the islamists which come essentially from oil revenues... ironically the latter have been multiplied by three in the short term due to the rise in the oil price that the intervention has caused... one would hope this was allowed for in the planning stage, although it's difficult not to wonder a bit
In reply to Fex Wazner:
What is so frightning is just how thin the veneer of civilized behaviour is in humans. We seem to be the only species which kills for the sake of it, we use excuses like religious and political differences, but underneath is there an inherent blood lust in all of us? Once the killing starts it spirals out of control and we seem to revel in making each act more horrible and evil than the last.
And this violent streak isn't just limited to so called third world and developing countries, we saw it in Nazi Germany a leading industialised country, there were the "troubles" in N Ireland, and we see the seeds of it on the street corners of our cities every Saturday night when the clubs turn out.
Road rage is something which seems to affect every sector of our "civilized" society, and can lead to violence, even killing. Even on a forum like this there are a fair number of agressive postings which might be considered the thin end of the wedge.
Why are humans like this? And inspite of all the trappings of "civilisation" has the species really changed since we first evolved?
What is so frightning is just how thin the veneer of civilized behaviour is in humans. We seem to be the only species which kills for the sake of it, we use excuses like religious and political differences, but underneath is there an inherent blood lust in all of us? Once the killing starts it spirals out of control and we seem to revel in making each act more horrible and evil than the last.
And this violent streak isn't just limited to so called third world and developing countries, we saw it in Nazi Germany a leading industialised country, there were the "troubles" in N Ireland, and we see the seeds of it on the street corners of our cities every Saturday night when the clubs turn out.
Road rage is something which seems to affect every sector of our "civilized" society, and can lead to violence, even killing. Even on a forum like this there are a fair number of agressive postings which might be considered the thin end of the wedge.
Why are humans like this? And inspite of all the trappings of "civilisation" has the species really changed since we first evolved?
In reply to TobyA:
This is it: http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
I think you have to let them show you an advert before (there is a little button at the bottom if you don't want to sit through it!) you get free access.
> Hence, the no choice bit - its "Nixon to China" time. Christopher Hitchen wrote an article on this that I actually agreed with! I'll find the link when I get to work.
This is it: http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
I think you have to let them show you an advert before (there is a little button at the bottom if you don't want to sit through it!) you get free access.
In reply to TobyA:
Would they really care?
I always got the impression they are used more as an excuse for hating Israel rather than doing any active to support them.
I guess we will see the yanks really ramp up the attempts to destablise Iran by fermenting internal unrest.
> Also the Iranian 'wiping Israel off the map' is just chat for those who don't own maps. There is nothing you could ever hit in Israel without massively effecting the Palestinian population as well.
Would they really care?
I always got the impression they are used more as an excuse for hating Israel rather than doing any active to support them.
I guess we will see the yanks really ramp up the attempts to destablise Iran by fermenting internal unrest.
In reply to TobyA:
Thanks. I have heard this elsewhere: that the average Irani is much more secular and internationally-aspirational than typically portrayed.
> This is it: http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
Thanks. I have heard this elsewhere: that the average Irani is much more secular and internationally-aspirational than typically portrayed.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...