Tony Blair - Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

Azwaldo55

Tony Blair has inevitably come under fire from the usual suspects since the recent upsurge in Sunni Islamist extremist violence in Iraq which has led to the collapse of several divisions of the Iraqi Army, the fall of major cities and bloody massacres by vengeful jihadist fanatics.

The anti-war Left would have you believe that if the 2003 invasion had not occurred miraculously Iraq presumably still ruled by the blood stained tyrant Saddam Hussein and his equally psychopathic sons would be a sea of calm.
They apparently believe the 2011 Arab Spring which laid low thugs such as Gaddaffi and Mubarak and has led to a cataclysmic civil war in Syria would not be mirrored in Iraq.

Blair has pointed out the obvious:

Easily the most likely scenario is that Iraq would have been engulfed by precisely the same convulsion. Take the hypothesis further. The most likely response of Saddam would have been to fight to stay in power. Here we would have a Sunni leader trying to retain power in the face of a Shia revolt. Imagine the consequences. Next door in Syria a Shia backed minority would be clinging to power trying to stop a Sunni majority insurgency. In Iraq the opposite would be the case. The risk would have been of a full blown sectarian war across the region, with States not fighting by proxy, but with national armies.

He succinctly describes the roots of the problems in the Middle East and the challenges we all face:

The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution.

But because of the way these factors interrelate, the revolution was never going to be straightforward. This is the true lesson of Iraq. But it is also the lesson from the whole of the so-called Arab Spring. The fact is that as a result of the way these societies have developed and because Islamism of various descriptions became the focal point of opposition to oppression, the removal of the dictatorship is only the beginning not the end of the challenge. Once the regime changes, then out come pouring all the tensions – tribal, ethnic and of course above all religious; and the rebuilding of the country, with functioning institutions and systems of Government, becomes incredibly hard. The extremism de-stabilises the country, hinders the attempts at development, the sectarian divisions become even more acute and the result is the mess we see all over the region. And beyond it. Look at Pakistan or Afghanistan and the same elements are present.

Understanding this and analysing properly what has happened, is absolutely vital to the severe challenge of working out what we can do about it. So rather than continuing to re-run the debate over Iraq from over 11 years ago, realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.

Among the Western public and particularly among the political Left plagued by imperial guilt there is an assumption that if the West does not intervene in the Middle East there will be no consequences for us.:rolleyes:

Tony Blair details the three approaches that have all has negative consequences:

Indeed we now have three examples of Western policy towards regime change in the region. In Iraq, we called for the regime to change, removed it and put in troops to try to rebuild the country. But intervention proved very tough and today the country is at risk again. In Libya, we called for the regime to change, we removed it by airpower, but refused to put in troops and now Libya is racked by instability, violence and has exported vast amounts of trouble and weapons across North Africa and down into sub- Saharan Africa. In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

Blair lays out in stark terms what the deniers among the Left refuse to recognize.

However more than that, in this struggle will be decided many things: the fate of individual countries, the future of the Middle East, and the direction of the relationship between politics and the religion of Islam. This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations. And it will affect how Islam develops across the world. If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.

There is no sensible policy for the West based on indifference. This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not.

Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

So what is the solution?

Fight Islamic extremism! But Blair claims with justification that the left and in particular the media have their heads in the sand.

The starting point is to identify the nature of the battle. It is against Islamist extremism. That is the fight. People shy away from the starkness of that statement. But it is because we are constantly looking for ways of avoiding facing up to this issue, that we can't make progress in the battle.

Of course in every case, there are reasons of history and tribe and territory which add layers of complexity. Of course, too, as I said at the outset, bad governance has played a baleful role in exacerbating the challenges. But all those problems become infinitely tougher to resolve, when religious extremism overlays everything. Then unity in a nation is impossible. Stability is impossible. Therefore progress is impossible. Government ceases to build for the future and manages each day as it can. Division tears apart cohesion. Hatred replaces hope.

We have to unite with those in the Muslim world, who agree with this analysis to fight the extremism. Parts of the Western media are missing a critical new element in the Middle East today. There are people – many of them – in the region who now understand this is the battle and are prepared to wage it. We have to stand with them.

Doubtless Blair will be shouted down and scorned by the usual suspects who will stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes tight and scream rather than up with a coherent policy toward the problems he has identified.:mad:

If our discourse in the West is dominated by childish deniers and appeasers of Islam then we face a bleak future indeed just as their counterparts in the mid twentieth century who appeased extremism saw their intentions to avoid war at all costs cruelly blow up their face.

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

childish deniers and appeasers of Islam

What's "childish" is viewing all muslims as fundamentalists.

Too complex a situation IMO - I agree Saddam was a brutal dictator and hate when people downplay that, but I'm not a fan of invasions and lots of innocent people being killed and cities torn to pieces either, particularly when the interests of those doing the invading are quite questionable.
Pretty basic logic really - nothing to do with "imperial guilt of the left" :rolleyes:

Azwaldo55

Magaggie wrote: »

What's "childish" is viewing all muslims as fundamentalists.

Muslims revere a creep who was 53 when he raped his 9 year old bride as a Prophet and millions of them call for anyone who insults this paedophile to be killed. The current jihadist violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria and directed against Israel is being perpetrated by Muslim groups who are being financed and armed by Muslim fundamentalist rulers of Saudi Arabia and neighboring Gulf states.

Violent Muslim groups are terrorizing moderate Muslims in the West (who arrived in Europe to escape the barbarism of the Middle East) in order to create cowed communities who will become the sea the fish will swim. The ultimate aim of these jihadists is to inflict sharia on their host societies.

Liberal leftist progressives suffering from post colonial guilt are caving into this conspiracy and shouting down opposition with PC claims of racism and Islamophobia.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.

Winston Churchill

wes

Amazing that some people will take Blair seriously, after his completely delusional war, started over imaginary WMDs, which btw was the stated reason for the invasion, which the OP, ignores as it would show Blair to be a lunatic with a messiah complex, who is just as dangerous as the fanatics he condemns, and should also equally find himself in front of war crime tribunal as the groups he condemns.

There is also the typical sickening denial of Blairs own role in the current mess in the Middle East. Yes, Al Maliki's sectarianism has resulted in the rise of ISIS, but let not forget that it was the Bush/Blair invasion that put him in power in the first place.

Also, btw Al Qaeda and ISIL showed up after there invasion, and there claim of such groups being there before the invasion was a complete lie, and they were directly responsible for such groups coming to Iraq in the first place. FFS, it was an tactic that the American politicians stated with the entire "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." i.e. they wanted extremist in Iraq basically.

So quite frankly Blair has 0 credibility along with anyone who defends him. Blair lied again and again, and its amazing that some are so willing to ignore and rewrite history to deny that fact.

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Liberal leftist progressives suffering from post colonial guilt bla bla

I'm Irish. No post colonial guilt for me. "Progressive" - oh no! :eek:

But as you say yourself, there are moderate muslims.

Mr. Incognito

Britain conquers Ottoman Empire. Promises autonomy. Reneges on that deal. Carves the Middle East out of warring tribal lines to sow de-stability to avoid reunification.

Britain carves Israel out of Palestine. Arms it with the US and resettles European Jews there. Supports it politically and with arms.

Britain and US supports Iraq in its war against Iran.

Britain and US turn on Iraq when it invades Kuwait. Bomb Iraq and invade destroying its economy and infrastructure.

Britain and US impose sanctions which lead to mass starvation, stunted economy and radicalism against the West. Swap basic necessities for cheap oil.

Britain and US invade again, on false, pretences with no international mandate. Bomb and destroy what little infrastructure left. Put mass murder on TV and give it jazzy name.... Shock and awe. Murder the leader, topple the government the government. Exercise a holding mission against the population while it tries to install a pro West government. Rebrand the war as regime change after no WMD found.

Pulls out due to unpopularity in the home polling booth. Pro west government oppresses population. Bribery and corruption rife. Weak security. Leads to ASIS invading from Syria.

Former PM insinuates was inevitable as country full of radical fundamentalists and population have stunted economy. (Duh!!)

Tony Blair is nothing more than a well paid greased up PR geebag.

Azwaldo55

wes wrote: »

Amazing that some people will take Blair seriously, after his completely delusional war, started over imaginary WMDs, which btw was the stated reason for the invasion, which the OP, ignores as it would show Blair to be a lunatic with a messiah complex, who is just as dangerous as the fanatics he condemns, and should also equally find himself in front of war crime tribunal as the groups he condemns.

Saddam used WMD to murder his own people and as the Iraq Survey Group discovered the infrastructure was in place to begin manufacturing WMD once the weakening system of UN sanctions were lifted.

It is laughable to even suggest that Tony Blair should face a war crimes trial for overthrowing a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein.

UN resolution 1441 authorized military action if Saddam failed to comply with weapons inspectors. The UN Security Council refused to support the US and UK because surprise surprise Russia and China opposed military action just as they currently oppose military intervention to stop Assad who has gassed his own people.

France meanwhile has changed its tune and intervened militarily in Mali to prevent it falling to Islamist rule.

There is also the typical sickening denial of Blairs own role in the current mess in the Middle East. Yes, Al Maliki's sectarianism has resulted in the rise of ISIS, but let not forget that it was the Bush/Blair invasion that put him in power in the first place.

Tens of millions of Iraqis VOTED in democratic elections to place Maliki in power. That fact seems to have escaped your attention has it?

Also, btw Al Qaeda and ISIS showed up after there invasion, and there claim of such groups being there before the invasion was a complete lie, and they were directly responsible for such groups coming to Iraq in the first place.

Islamic extremism has existed in Iraq and throughout the Middle East for centuries. Saladin the Muslim leader who captured Jerusalem and imposed his bloody rule across the Middle East during the Middle Ages came from Tikrit in what is now Iraq. Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other since the birth of Islam.

FFS, it was an tactic that the American politicians stated with the entire "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." i.e. they wanted extremist in Iraq basically.

So quite frankly Blair has 0 credibility along with anyone who defends him.

It is you and people like you who have 0 credibility.

Non-intervention in a region which is the heart of Islam leaves the stage to Islamists who seek to fill the vacuum and once they establish their dreamed of Caliphate will use the oil riches of the region to spread jihad to the rest of the world.

We might as well slits our own throats if we continue to appease these barbarian animals.

Shakespeare's Sister

What about when Iraq was backed by the US and was at war for several years with an islamic theocracy?

Mr. Incognito

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam used WMD to murder his own people and as the Iraq Survey Group discovered the infrastructure was in place to begin manufacturing WMD once the weakening system of UN sanctions were lifted.

It is laughable to even suggest that Tony Blair should face a war crimes trial for overthrowing a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein.

UN resolution 1441 authorized military action if Saddam failed to comply with weapons inspectors. The UN Security Council refused to support the US and UK because surprise surprise Russia and China opposed military action just as they currently oppose military intervention to stop Assad who has gassed his own people.

France meanwhile has changed its tune and intervened militarily in Mali to prevent it falling to Islamist rule.



Tens of millions of Iraqis VOTED in democratic elections to place Maliki in power. That fact seems to have escaped your attention has it?



Islamic extremism has existed in Iraq and throughout the Middle East for centuries. Saladin the Muslim leader who captured Jerusalem and imposed his bloody rule across the Middle East during the Middle Ages came from Tikrit in what is now Iraq. Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other since the birth of Islam.

FFS, it was an tactic that the American politicians stated with the entire "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here." i.e. they wanted extremist in Iraq basically.



It is you and people like you who have 0 credibility.

Non-intervention in a region which is the heart of Islam leaves the stage to Islamists who seek to fill the vacuum and once they establish their dreamed of Caliphate will use the oil riches of the region to spread jihad to the rest of the world.

We might as well slits our own throats if we continue to appease these barbarian animals.

You should watch Fox News. I think you'd be friends.

Azwaldo55

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Britain conquers Ottoman Empire. Promises autonomy. Reneges on that deal. Carves the Middle East out of warring tribal lines to sow de-stability to avoid reunification.

So you think the Ottoman Empire - brutal, Islamist and backward - should have been left alone?

Britain carves Israel out of Palestine. Arms it with the US and resettles European Jews there. Supports it politically and with arms.

Israel was the ancient home of the Jewish people and the obvious place to settle millions of Jews who naturally enough did not want to live in Europe anymore after a guy called Adolf and his mates tried to exterminate them all.
Do you think the West should stand back and allow the Arabs to invade Israel and murder every last Jew they can get their hands on?

Britain and US supports Iraq in its war against Iran.

Iraq was a Soviet puppet state with its AK-47s, T-72 tanks, MiGs and Scuds supplied by Soviet factories.

Britain and US turn on Iraq when it invades Kuwait. Bomb Iraq and invade destroying its economy and infrastructure.

Kuwait's oil constituted a major portion of global supplies in 1990. The West could not and would not tolerate a dictator like Saddam Hussein stealing it and enriching himself.

Britain and US impose sanctions which lead to mass starvation, stunted economy and radicalism against the West. Swap basic necessities for cheap oil.

The sanctions regime would still be in place today if Saddam had not been overthrown in 2003 would they not?

Britain and US invade again, on false, pretences with no international mandate.

UN resolution 1441 authorized military force is Saddam did not comply with inspectors. Since when do you need permission from Russia and China to overthrow a murderous dictator who they supported? The fact that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people should have been more than reason enough to overthrow hi,

Murder the leader, topple the government the government.

Because Saddam was such a nice guy? Give me a break!

Exercise a holding mission against the population while it tries to install a pro West government.

Tens of millions of Iraqis voted for a democratic constitution, democratic local officials, democratic parliamentary representatives and democratic President in multiple elections since 2003.

Rebrand the war as regime change after no WMD found.

The only reason we now know for sure Saddam has no WMD stockpiles is the 2003 invasion.

Pulls out due to unpopularity in the home polling booth.

Spineless politicians like John Kerry and Barack Obama whipped up anti-war sentiment for political gain in 2004 and 2008

Pro west government oppresses population. Bribery and corruption rife. Weak security. Leads to ASIS invading from Syria.

The failings of the current Iraqi government are a direct result of spineless Western governments who pulled out and left the country to disintegrate.

Tony Blair is nothing more than a well paid greased up PR geebag.

I think I have thoroughly debunked your arguments point for point.

Azwaldo55

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You should watch Fox News. I think you'd be friends.

Are you going to address my points intelligently?

Mr. Incognito

I didn't cop that you started this thread. I am really sorry I replied.

Your views are so far apart from rational and frankly scary to me that I think you are as radical as the persons you oppose. There is no point engaging in discussion or debate with you because it's just a race ( no pun intended) to the ugly bottom. I see you have declared yourself the unilateral winner of the debate. Congratulations. You win at the internet.

fr336

Nobody in Britain likes Blair. Nobody.

wes

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam used WMD to murder his own people and as the Iraq Survey Group discovered the infrastructure was in place to begin manufacturing WMD once the weakening system of UN sanctions were lifted.

You fail to mention that the WMDs he used to murder his own people, were you know gotten from the West, and when he used them on Iranians, who was you know supported by the West. You need to stop leaving out facts.

Oh btw, the invasion was predicated on there being WMDs, that could be launched in 45 minutes, and not the potential ability to build them in the future. So again the lied, and pretending that there was no lie, is absurd, and typical of defenders of the Iraq war. Change the goal posts, once the lie has been exposed. So now that we have established clearly that there were no WMDs, and you admit to as much. Care to now explain how the ability to sometime to maybe, potentially build WMDs in some unspecified future time, is the same as Saddam, being able to deploy them in 45 minutes (or 90 or whatever number Blair pulled out of thin air), you know the stated reason for the invasion, and not the hopeless pathetic goal posted changing your trying to pull here.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

It is laughable to even suggest that Tony Blair should face a war crimes trial for overthrowing a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein.

Not at all. Blair lied, he should be tried for an illegal war of aggression, based on very obvious lies, from a man with a messiah complex.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

UN resolution 1441 authorized military action if Saddam failed to comply with weapons inspectors. The UN Security Council refused to support the US and UK because surprise surprise Russia and China opposed military action just as they currently oppose military intervention to stop Assad who has gassed his own people.

Now, now, thats an interesting claim, your making, seeing as the Resolution states a lot more than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

We know that was a lie, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, as he was a Secular Arab Nationalist.

Oh, and the resolution didn't authorize m

ilitary action, you and the war criminals Bush and Blair falsely claim that, just another lie:

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4]

Odd that the American and British reps to the UN says that the resolution doesn't authorize military action....... Of course, we can't let facts get in the way of a war that was shown to be completely illegitimate years ago, and you are just trotting out the same debunked nonsense.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

France meanwhile has changed its tune and intervened militarily in Mali to prevent it falling to Islamist rule.

Now, now you see the difference was that the threat the French fought was real, and not the fantasy of men with messiah complexes.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Tens of millions of Iraqis VOTED in democratic elections to place Maliki in power. That fact seems to have escaped your attention has it?

Does the fact that Al Maliki ran a sectarian regime which has directly lead to the raise of ISIL escape you? What about the ethnic cleansing of Sunni's and Christians that occurred when the British and Americans were still there?

Democracy is not just majority rules, its suppose to protect the rights of everyone. Al Maliki's regime has not done that, it is a nakedly sectarian regime, and the fact remain that Blair helped created the current situation, and quite frankly has no credibility on the Middle East. =

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Islamic extremism has existed in Iraq and throughout the Middle East for centuries.

Nonsense, Saddam's brutal dictatorship also clamped down on extremist like Al Qaeda, who Bush/Blair lied about him supporting. Again, lets get back to the specific lies you wish to dance around. Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda, they were almost non-existent in Iraq, before the invasion. They arrived after. Now you can try and dance around that fact till the cows come home, and try and bring up ancient history in a pathetic attempt to ignored these lies, but the fact remains that there far to well know at this point.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saladin the Muslim leader who captured Jerusalem and imposed his bloody rule across the Middle East during the Middle Ages came from Tikrit in what is now Iraq. Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other since the birth of Islam.

WTF? Your as bad as the people who keep going on and on about the bloody crusaders who imposed there bloody rule over the Middle East, and is an example of the history of Western extremism, that has existed through out the centuries. Do you see how silly that kind of things sounds, right?

Sure, why don't you go back to the martydom of Ali while your at it, or Genghis Khan and pretend that the intervening history in Iraq under Saddam, were Sunni/Shia lived in relative peace never happened.

Its really rather simple, the origins of the current sectarian conflict, is due to Al Maliki, and not bloody Saladin.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

It is you and people like you who have 0 credibility.

No, it liars like Blair and people who support him, who have intervened and shown themselves to utterly incompetent, and should be kept away from and kind of power, and shown for the dangerous incompetents and war criminals that they are.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Non-intervention in a region which is the heart of Islam leaves the stage to Islamists who seek to fill the vacuum and once they establish their dreamed of Caliphate will use the oil riches of the region to spread jihad to the rest of the world.

Intervention from people who helped cause the mess in the first place. Nope, I think Neo-cons are dangerous idiots who have killed more Iraqi's than ISIL have manged to kill so far. I think people who don't have messiah complexes should be listened to, and not dangerous war mongering Neo-cons, like Bush/Blair and there supporters.

In fact Blair and other Neo-con are actually hurting any kind of intervention against ISIL, as there own toxic murderous ideology, has caused a hell of lot of death and destruction, and they would rather repeat there lies and nonsense and not take any responsibility for the mess they helped make.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

We might as well slits our own throats if we continue to appease these barbarian animals.

What do we call the neo-cons, who have murdered more Iraqi's than ISIL have exactly? Why should anyone listen to Blair and his supporters, considering the death toll there responsible for? Siding with one bunch of "barbarian animals" (your words btw, I think such a phrase is a bit silly) is surely a bad idea.

wes

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Israel was the ancient home of the Jewish people and the obvious place to settle millions of Jews who naturally enough did not want to live in Europe anymore after a guy called Adolf and his mates tried to exterminate them all.

So screw the people who already lived there, due some stuff in the Bible? Interesting that you are engaged in a de facto denial of the existence of an entire groups of people, by failing to mention that you know they were already living there. Typical of the attempted Zionist erasure of the Palestinians from history. Too bad that failed, what with all the historical and genetic evidence.

Also, why should Palestinians have to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany exactly? Why should they be displaced, due Biblical extremism? You know for someone who goes on about Islamic extremism, you are rather bizarrely supported of the Bible based kind.

BTW, Palestinians are Jews who changed there Religions and inter-married after various groups conquered the place, Jews and Palestinians are genetically very closely related:

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Do you think the West should stand back and allow the Arabs to invade Israel and murder every last Jew they can get their hands on?

Ah, Yes, the Arabs are all out to just murder all the Jews.....

Let pretend that Arab peace plan doesn't exist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

Whats interesting is that its actually Israel who murders more Palestinians...... Of course, we shouldn't let numbers get in the way.

BTW, I don't think the vast majority of Palestinians or Israelis are genocidal. Yes, some fanatics on both sides are, but I doubt most are.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Tony Blair has (.............)

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/

Your view of the middle east is remarkably like that of Mr Blair - belligerent, not worried about inconvenient facts and historically inaccurate. Sadly while yours can be scoffed at, his cost lives at one stage.

Azwaldo55

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I didn't cop that you started this thread. I am really sorry I replied.

Your views are so far apart from rational and frankly scary to me that I think you are as radical as the persons you oppose. There is no point engaging in discussion or debate with you because it's just a race ( no pun intended) to the ugly bottom. I see you have declared yourself the unilateral winner of the debate. Congratulations. You win at the internet.

I am as radical as the Islamic savages?
I am pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-women's rights, pro-human rights, pro-democracy, pro-science, pro-education, atheist, secular, left wing progressive and pro-capitalist.
Western civilization is not perfect but compared to the alternatives on offer it is superior in every respect.
The Islamists have studied us closely and they observe a paper tiger.
A century ago Western European empires dominated the globe until they went to war twice and Berlin fell to the Russians. America became the dominant Western power with Old Europe playing second fiddle. The Anglo-Americans deluded themselves that they had "won" WW2.

The West allowed China to turn communist, the West failed to defeat North Korea and a youthful generation refused to fight in Vietnam to the finish and instead protested so they could indulge themselves in music, sex, drugs and materialism. Vietnamese guerrillas and soldiers showed more spirit than a spoiled and indulged materially wealthier baby boomer generation. The end of the Cold War created a false sense of security and while America and Europe enjoyed undreamed of prosperity famines in Africa and genocides such as those in Rwanda and Yugoslavia and Somalia were ignored. Russia and China quietly re-established themselves as world powers.

Complacency and the delusion that the horrors of the Middle East and the Third World has nothing to do with the West led directly to 9/11 when a group of Islamists defeated the entire US military machine with a few carpet knives and the desire to die for Allah.

The failure of political will at an elite level and a complete collapse in public morale has led directly to the disastrous defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Young people are more interested in social media, computer gaming, reality TV celebrity and sport than the real world problems. The political elite believed if they could lob a few missiles and bombs the Islamists would go quietly back into their burrows.

Bush and Blair became lightening rods for delusional hatred. The loss of a few thousand American and British troops - microscopic compared to the losses in World War 1 and 2 - are apparently too much for the Western public to bear.
Our Muslims enemies meanwhile cheerfully die by the thousand convinced of final victory.

As jihad spreads across Asia, the Middle East and Africa, young Muslim fanatics in Europe will eventually seize their chance and they will bring the tactics that worked in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan to our streets.
The left liberals who oppose war have stuck their heads in the sand and believe that if we simply ignore the looming threat of Islamic extremism it will go away.

It will not go away.

I am reminded of the scene from Jaws when Chief Brody and Hooper plead in vain for the Mayor to close the beaches until they can capture and kill the shark. The Mayor waves away their concerns in his obsession with summer dollars. The result is carnage. I hope that the West gets its act together before we experience attacks that will eclipse the 9/11 taster but I believe I hope in vain.

Azwaldo55

wes wrote: »

So screw the people who already lived there, due some stuff in the Bible? Interesting that you are engaged in a de facto denial of the existence of an entire groups of people, by failing to mention that you know they were already living there. Typical of the attempted Zionist erasure of the Palestinians from history. Too bad that failed, what with all the historical and genetic evidence.

Also, why should Palestinians have to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany exactly? Why should they be displaced, due Biblical extremism? You know for someone who goes on about Islamic extremism, you are rather bizarrely supported of the Bible based kind.

BTW, Palestinians are Jews who changed there Religions and inter-married after various groups conquered the place, Jews and Palestinians are genetically very closely related:

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

Palestine was a desert when the Jews repopulated the place in the late 19th and early 20th century. Jewish settlers cultivated the land and created a thriving economy. The majority of Palestinians are Arabs who came because of the work the Jews made available for them. The Arabs at the same time resented and hated the Jews because they are not Muslim and according to Muslim thought only Muslims should live on Muslim land. Jews or Christian must either convert or accept second class status as dhimmis. It was too much for Jews to have their own country where their forefathers and lived long before Muhammad and his Arab armies swept into the region from the deserts of Saudi Arabia.

Ah, Yes, the Arabs are all out to just murder all the Jews.....

The slogan of Arafat was "From The River to the Sea!"

Read any number of Palestinian speeches and the theme is always to conquer Israel and murder all the Jews.

Let pretend that Arab peace plan doesn't exist:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1844214.stm

The Arabs have torn up every peace plan because they are not interested in peace. They want all the Jews to die.

Whats interesting is that its actually Israel who murders more Palestinians...... Of course, we shouldn't let numbers get in the way.

BTW, I don't think the vast majority of Palestinians or Israelis are genocidal. Yes, some fanatics on both sides are, but I doubt most are.

If Israel did not have its forces on perpetual standby, if it did not have the security barriers in place, if it did not have nuclear weapons - the Arabs would have destroyed them long ago.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Palestine was a desert when the Jews repopulated the place in the late 19th and early 20th century. Jewish settlers cultivated the land and created a thriving economy. The majority of Palestinians are Arabs who came because of the work the Jews made available for them. The Arabs at the same time resented and hated the Jews because they are not Muslim and according to Muslim thought only Muslims should live on Muslim land. Jews or Christian must either convert or accept second class status as dhimmis. It was too much for Jews to have their own country where their forefathers and lived long before Muhammad and his Arab armies swept into the region from the deserts of Saudi Arabia.

...............

Kahanist nonsense that last saw the light of day in "From Time Imemorial" back in the 1980's. Your claims are long disproved and have no basis in fact.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The West allowed China to turn communist, the West failed to defeat North Korea and a youthful generation refused to fight in Vietnam to the finish and instead protested so they could indulge themselves in music, sex, drugs and materialism..

I'm reminded of Granpa simpsons happy memories of beating strikers and hippies back in the 1960's.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Complacency and the delusion that the horrors of the Middle East and the Third World has nothing to do with the West led directly to 9/11 when a group of Islamists defeated the entire US military machine with a few carpet knives and the desire to die for Allah..

I'm sure that was the plot of the video game version, but in reality they launched a surprise terrorist attack. "defeated the entire US military machine" is an exaggeration worthy of al Qaeda itself.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I am reminded of the scene from Jaws when Chief Brody and Hooper plead in vain for the Mayor to close the beaches until they can capture and kill the shark. The Mayor waves away their concerns in his obsession with summer dollars. The result is carnage. I hope that the West gets its act together before we experience attacks that will eclipse the 9/11 taster but I believe I hope in vain.

I'm reminded of the fact that "Jaws" was not a real shark.

wes

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Palestine was a desert when the Jews repopulated the place in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Complete and utter racist lie. Palestinians were living there FFS. The Ottomans had population records going back centuries. Those records still exist btw.

Denying the existence of the Palestinian people is just nasty racism and nothing more.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Jewish settlers cultivated the land and created a thriving economy.

Palestinians already cultivated the land just fine......

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The majority of Palestinians are Arabs who came because of the work the Jews made available for them.

They were already there.... Ottoman records show this, they were like all empires rather good at bureaucracy.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The Arabs at the same time resented and hated the Jews because they are not Muslim and according to Muslim thought only Muslims should live on Muslim land.

Erm, there are Christian Palestinians as well.....

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Jews or Christian must either convert or accept second class status as dhimmis. It was too much for Jews to have their own country where their forefathers and lived long before Muhammad and his Arab armies swept into the region from the deserts of Saudi Arabia.

Interesting that you are deliberately ignoring the genetic evidence I posted earlier...... Oh wait, I forgot that you aren't actually replying to anything I said.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The slogan of Arafat was "From The River to the Sea!"

Arafat is dead......

So again you ignore the Arab peace plan, as it doesn't suit your world view. Seeing a pattern of lies and ignoring inconvenient facts, when it suits.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Read any number of Palestinian speeches and the theme is always to conquer Israel and murder all the Jews.

You will find nutters on both sides will say stuff like that. Again, the fact remains that the Arabs have offered full peace and normalization to Israel in exchange for them returning to there own borders. Now why you refuse to address this or anything I said, is beyond me, but that doesn't make those facts disappear.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The Arabs have torn up every peace plan because they are not interested in peace. They want all the Jews to die.

Nonsense, the current peace talks were torpedoed by Israel, announcing yet more settlements, even the American's are pissed at what Israel has done.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If Israel did not have its forces on perpetual standby, if it did not have the security barriers in place, if it did not have nuclear weapons - the Arabs would have destroyed them long ago.

Complete and utter tosh. Again, you refuse to acknowledge the Arab peace plan.

You post long dis-proven and quite frankly racist lies that deny the existence of a group of people.

You ignore genetic evidence, as it doesn't suit you.

In fact you don't actually address anything I have said, and are basically writing a blog unrelated to anything any actually says.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

I'm reminded of Granpa simpsons happy memories of beating strikers and hippies back in the 1960's.

A generation who refused to fight and who think they can declare universal peace while jihadists laughed and sharpened their knives has doomed future generations to a blood struggle for survival.
Your children, your grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to hold back the Islamic hordes.

I'm sure that was the plot of the video game version, but in reality they launched a surprise terrorist attack. "defeated the entire US military machine" is an exaggeration worthy of al Qaeda itself.

America was rendered utterly helpless as thousands of its citizens perished. With victory imminent in Iraq and soon in Afghanistan as Obama orders another disastrous troop withdrawal America will have to become fortress.
Americans will have lost any faith in their own ability to fight back which is suicidal again an enemy that is expert at sniffing out weakness.
Fortresses are sitting ducks. You cannot hide behind walls and expect to survive. You must come out and take the fight to the enemy if you expect to win.

I'm reminded of the fact that "Jaws" was not a real shark.

The parable of a Mayor refusing to accept the threat exists I believe is apt for our current debacle.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A generation who refused to fight and who think they can declare universal peace while jihadists laughed and sharpened their knives has doomed future generations to a blood struggle for survival.
Your children, your grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to hold back the Islamic hordes..

Dear o dear.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

America was rendered utterly helpless as thousands of its citizens perished. With victory imminent in Iraq and soon in Afghanistan as Obama orders another disastrous troop withdrawal America will have to become fortress.
Americans will have lost any faith in their own ability to fight back which is suicidal again an enemy that is expert at sniffing out weakness.
Fortresses are sitting ducks. You cannot hide behind walls and expect to survive. You must come out and take the fight to the enemy if you expect to win...

...which paragraph of further hyperbole does nothing to change the fact that your earlier hyperbole was entirely wrong and misleading.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The parable of a Mayor refusing to accept the threat exists I believe is apt for our current debacle.

....and the fact that the movie was a great example of hype, using fear to sell the product, is fairly appropriate too.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A generation who refused to fight and who think they can declare universal peace while jihadists laughed and sharpened their knives has doomed future generations to a blood struggle for survival.
Your children, your grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to hold back the Islamic hordes.

Sadly many of these jihadists are simply young men from deprived backgrounds who have nothing and are given a purpose - they are told the Westerners are sitting there with their drones and aircraft carriers just waiting to bomb and kill all Muslims..

Eggy Baby!

The anti-war Left would have you believe that if the 2003 invasion had not occurred miraculously Iraq presumably still ruled by the blood stained tyrant Saddam Hussein and his equally psychopathic sons would be a sea of calm.

Being anti-war should be basic human nature and not indicative of being a "leftie".

Azwaldo55

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Being anti-war should be basic human nature and not indicative of being a "leftie".

Anti-war no matter what the consequences?

The Islamic insurgents carving out a Caliphate in Syria and Iraq are not very pacifist are they? They are happily slaughtering everyone they can get their hands on and it seems to be working just fine for their barbarian cause.

When the jihadists consolidate and start making forays into other oil rich regions of the Middle East like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and capture the prize of Mecca itself what then?

Do you only abandon your pacificism when jihadists emboldened by victory in the Middle East launch insurgencies on the streets of European cities?

If a Beslan type attack occurred in UCD or Trinity College or suicide bombers blew up the Luas or Croke Park would you wake up?

US air power is needed to pulverize al-Qa'ida in Iraq as it has done in the Pakistan tribal areas. But air power cannot be used in isolation. Western intelligence networks need to be re-established and special forces deployed to deal with targets that cannot be hit from the air. Military advisers need to be re-attached to Iraqi forces to coordinate their actions with Western strike operations, and to encourage them to re-adopt the successful counter-insurgency strategy abandoned when the US left.

All of this is no doubt unpalatable to President Obama who has already ruled out deployment of ground troops. It is equally unpalatable to our own Prime Minister who did not have the stomach for any meaningful reaction to Syrian use of chemical weapons.

But there are other alternatives. The first is to stand by and watch as Iraq descends into bloody civil war in which al-Qa'ida consolidates its position across Iraq as well as Syria, and from which it can present an increasing threat to Western interests in the region and beyond. The second is to yield ever more influence in Iraq to the destabilizing forces of Iran and Russia. According to rumour, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Force troops have already been sent by Iran to the aid of their ally Al Maliki as they were sent to the aid of their Syrian ally Al Assad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-opinion-from-the-experts--whats-happened-and-whats-next-9537576.html

Anti-war pacificism is suicidal when we face an existential threat to the entire world from Islamic barbarism.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

.........

Anti-war pacificism is suicidal when we face an existential threat to the entire world from Islamic barbarism.

But we don't. They don't have air power, carrier fleets, nuclear weapons or armour.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

But we don't. They don't have air power, carrier fleets, nuclear weapons or armour.

They don't need to air power, carrier fleets, nuclear weapons or armor to launch a campaign of terrorist attacks. 9/11 and the relentless terrorist attack throughout the globe over the past decade have proved that. They need tens of thousands of religious fanatics, millions of sympathizers and lots of money as well as ineffectual spineless politicians in the West and a cowed pacificist Western population too afraid to offend Muslims to call a spade a spade.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

They don't need to air power, carrier fleets, nuclear weapons or armor to launch a campaign of terrorist attacks. 9/11 and the relentless terrorist attack throughout the globe over the past decade have proved that. .

Terrorist attacks do not pose an "existential threat to the entire world".

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

They need tens of thousands of religious fanatics, millions of sympathizers and lots of money as well as ineffectual spineless politicians in the West and a cowed pacificist Western population too afraid to offend Muslims to call a spade a spade.

Do please explain.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

Terrorist attacks do not pose an "existential threat to the entire world".

In case it has escaped your attention there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in the following countries:

Syria
Mali
Yemen
Somalia
Iraq
Pakistan
Southern Philippines
Sudan
Kenya
Uganda
Algeria
Egypt
Iran
Israel/Palestine
Southern Thailand
West Turkestan
Chechnya
Ingushetia
Uzbekistan
Krygystan
Indonesia
Kurdistan/Turkey
Northern India
Mauritania
Niger
Nigeria

Meanwhile the United States, Britain, Spain, France, Australia, Germany and other Western countries have been attacked or have been subject to attempted attacks by Islamic extremists.

Since 9/11 there have been thousands of attacks by Islamic terrorists throughout the world which have claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and Islamic extremists travel across borders to fight in multiple conflicts, train together, share information, money, weapons, expertise and to seek refuge when hunted in another country.

Do please explain.

Your own willful ignorance and your refusal to accept the global terrorist threat is symptomatic of the very Western malaise I am talking about.
Any criticism of Islam and the barbaric practices of its followers is drowned out by left-wing liberals who scream "Islamophobia!" as if it irrational to oppose a belief system that is backward, primitive, violent and sadistic.
This denial threatens the ability of Western governments to fight back against this existential threat.
This has also had a chilling effect on discussion of Islamic extremism.
Even novels, magazine articles, jokes, sitcoms, stand up comedians and movies that criticize or poke fun art Islam are censored for fear of arousing the anger of mobs led by Islamic fundamentalists preachers and terrorists.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

In case it has escaped your attention there are ongoing Islamic insurgencies in the following countries:

.

You seem to be confusing insurgency by Islamic people and Islamic insurgency in a few cases.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Meanwhile the United States, Britain, Spain, France, Australia, Germany and other Western countries have been attacked or have been subject to attempted attacks by Islamic extremists.
.

As well as a few lone nuts, Nazis and so on. Yet daily lives are unimpeded.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Your own willful ignorance and your refusal to accept the global terrorist threat is symptomatic of the very Western malaise I am talking about.
Any criticism of Islam and the barbaric practices of its followers is drowned out by left-wing liberals who scream "Islamophobia!" as if it irrational to oppose a belief system that is backward, primitive, violent and sadistic.
This denial threatens the ability of Western governments to fight back against this existential threat.
......................

The vast majority of muslims don't believe in anything like that, do not support jihadis etc. Otherwise large parts of western Europe would be a warzone. Having been born and bred here I know what a terrorist campaign is, thanks, and Western Europe is not experiencing one.

There is no existential threat.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing insurgency by Islamic people and Islamic insurgency in a few cases.

There are one and the same as Muslims see it. in every single one of those conflicts I have listed foreign fighters, weapons and money have poured in.
They all share the same goal, the creation of Islamic states under Sharia Law.

As well as a few lone nuts, Nazis and so on. Yet daily lives are unimpeded.

For now.

The vast majority of muslims don't believe in anything like that, do not support jihadis etc.

Significant minorities of Muslims do support jihadists and favor Islamic law even in the West.

Otherwise large parts of western Europe would be a warzone.

Irish republican terrorists groups only had the support of a minority of Irish people during the Troubles and that was all it took to turn the North into a warzone. Terrorists groups do not need vast numbers of members to create carnage and instability.

Having been born and bred here I know what a terrorist campaign is, thanks, and Western Europe is not experiencing one.

The Madrid bombings which killed hundreds and the 7/7 bombings which killed dozens and wounded hundreds were successful attacks but scores more have been prevented year on year and thousands of Islamists have been arrested and questioned. The insurgencies in the Middle East are attracting European Muslim fighters but when these men return they aim to spread jihad to their home countries.

There is no existential threat.

Simply repeating this mantra does not make it go away.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

There are one and the same as Muslims see it. in every single one of those conflicts I have listed foreign fighters, weapons and money have poured in.
They all share the same goal, the creation of Islamic states under Sharia Law..

To pick just three -The Kurds want a Kurdish state, the Palestinians want a Palestinian state, the Chechens want a Chechen state free of Russian domination.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

For now...

Then the next time you launch out a wall of hyperbole about the "blood struggle" please use the future tense.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Significant minorities of Muslims do support jihadists and favor Islamic law even in the West....

...whatever the hell that vague declaration is meant to mean.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Irish republican terrorists groups only had the support of a minority of Irish people during the Troubles and that was all it took to turn the North into a warzone. Terrorists groups do not need vast numbers of members to create carnage and instability. ....

Yep, correct. And we see none of that in Western Europe, despite the large numbers of muslims in some states. Rather undermines your theory doesn't it?

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The Madrid bombings which killed hundreds and the 7/7 bombings which killed dozens and wounded hundreds were successful attacks but scores more have been prevented year on year and thousands of Islamists have been arrested and questioned. The insurgencies in the Middle East are attracting European Muslim fighters but when these men return they aim to spread jihad to their home countries.....

They do? You have this in writing?

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Simply repeating this mantra does not make it go away.

It can't "go away" because it doesn't exist.

realweirdo

As far as the current situation in the middle east, the west is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

The US has not intervened in any meaningful way in Syria, save for forcing Assad to get rid of his chemical weapons, which was a good thing, not least preventing them falling into the hands of ISIL.

The fact the US hasn't intervened has not stopped massive slaughter in Syria and massive human rights crimes and displacement of refugees, on a par with Iraq post 2003, if not in many cases worse.

Everything that was predicted by people like me and others has come to pass by virtue of the fact Assad has been allowed remain in power. A long running civil war with no end in sight, the rise of ever more radical groups such as ISIL, the spillover to other countries and the extension of the conflict, the Sunni are now no longer divided by the Iraq/Syria border and now have the means to threathen the government in Baghdad and elsewhere.

There has also been allegations from those on the ground in Syria that Assad has aided ISIL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nehad-ismail/al-qaeda-is-helping-al-as_b_4580532.html

http://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/283789--isil-are-tools-of-assad-regime-syrian-turkmen-commander

I suppose anything that diverts attention away from Assad can only be helpful in his view.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The anti-war Left would have you believe that if the 2003 invasion had not occurred miraculously Iraq presumably still ruled by the blood stained tyrant Saddam Hussein and his equally psychopathic sons would be a sea of calm.
They apparently believe the 2011 Arab Spring which laid low thugs such as Gaddaffi and Mubarak and has led to a cataclysmic civil war in Syria would not be mirrored in Iraq.

Naturally the Iraqi regime would have been swept away, just as were the regimes in Algeria, Mauritania, Bahrain, Yemen and, of course, Saudi Arabia...

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Iraq was a Soviet puppet state with its AK-47s, T-72 tanks, MiGs and Scuds supplied by Soviet factories.

I'm surprised you think so, given that American aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is very well documented. In reality, the Soviets only managed to gain one 'puppet state' in the middle east, during the cold war, which was the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. The rest, especially those controlled by the Ba'ath party movement, tended to play east against west and never aligned, per say. That includes Iraq.

The only reason we now know for sure Saddam has no WMD stockpiles is the 2003 invasion.

A bit like the only reason that witchfinders knew for sure a woman wasn't a witch was because she would fail to survive the trial by water.

Ash.J.Williams

i got as far as "anti war left"

Azwaldo55

The Corinthian wrote: »

A bit like the only reason that witchfinders knew for sure a woman wasn't a witch was because she would fail to survive the trial by water.

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD were destroyed after the 1991 defeat in Kuwait. He never disclosed this to the West and he never allowed UN inspectors into Iraq to find out.
We know he used WMD against the Kurds killing tens of thousands.
We know he had Scud missiles which he once used to bombard Israel and Saudi Arabia and these rocket were capable of being loaded with WMD.
We know he gave support to Palestinian terrorists and had given shelter to the Abu Nudal terrorist organisation.

In 2003 all the intelligence services of the major world powers - the Russians, the Chinese, the French - not just the US and the UK - believed Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of weapons. If the Russians, Chinese and French had intelligence they could have used to undermine the US and UK they would surely have used it wouldn't they?

Saddam Hussein still refused to admit UN inspectors who could have easily disproved the allegations of Bush and Blair but he refused to do so.
Hans Blix the chief UN inspector who delivered his report to the UN before the invasion said Saddam Hussein was purposely frustrating his inspection teams and demanded more time for inspections to work.

The British scientist David Kelly who later committed suicide after he was revealed to be the person who had claimed the WMD claims were sexed up had not found stockpiles of WMD and did not believe any existed.

However Kelly believed Saddam maintained the capability to restart his WMD program and this view was upheld by the post-invasion report of the Iraq Survey Group. Kelly supported overthrowing Saddam Hussein and did so until his dying day.

The only reason we know for sure that Saddam Hussein had no WMD is because of the invasion.

That and the overthrow of a genocidal dictator who killed thousands of his own people using WMD, the presence of the infrastructure ready to to recommence WMD stockpiling, Saddam Hussein's historical and continued support for terrorism e.g. Abu Nidal and other Arab terrorists had their offices in Baghdad and the regime gave aid to Palestinian terrorists setting off suicide bombs in Tel Aviv restaurants - were more than enough reasons to intervene.

The fact that tens of millions of Iraqis voted in democratic elections to elect their government since 2003 shows that Iraqis want a stable democratic future.
Today when the Iraqi government is threatened by Islamist terrorists and screams for the world to help them they should get the military assistance they need.
Anything less is a murderous and shameful betrayal and will have dire consequences for the West when an ocean of oil falls into the hands of Islamists and the region becomes a jumping board for attacks against Europe.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

were more than enough reasons to intervene.

Iraq has shown that pre-emptive war really doesn't work - the situation must arise

Removing Saddam during the first Gulf War would have had much more impetus

Azwaldo55

Jonny7 wrote: »

Iraq has shown that pre-emptive war really doesn't work - the situation must arise

Removing Saddam during the first Gulf War would have had much more impetus

There was no domestic support in the U.S. for removing Saddam in 1991.

In 1992 the U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who later became Vice-President under George W. Bush said the following:

I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq

During the 1990s during the Clinton administration the CIA conspired with the Kurds and the Shia and with elements within the Iraqi regime to try and overthrow Saddam by a coup d'etat. Clinton and Blair launched airstrikes against Iraq in the late 1990s after a series of failed coup plots. Two sons in law of Saddam defected only to be lured back with promises of forgiveness before being killed.

9/11 changed everything and convinced the Americans they had to get rid of Saddam after losing face by leaving him in power for 12 years.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD were destroyed after the 1991 defeat in Kuwait. ..........

A complete distortion of the historical facts, and untrue.

Why are you linking saddam to Islamists?

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

A complete distortion of the historical facts, and untrue.

Why are you linking saddam to Islamists?

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons up until 1991 when they were destroyed in secret. He maintained the infrastructure to begin the manufacture of chemical weapons again when the opportunity arose as the Iraq Survey Group uncovered.

Saddam had long held ambitions to become a nuclear power and in 1982 a French built nuclear reactor which would have been used to produce weapon grade nuclear material was blown up by an Israeli airstrike.

Saddam Hussein gave financial assistance to Palestinian Islamist terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder the Jews.

Jihadists co-operated with the Ba'ath regime in the run up to the 2003 invasion and fought on the side of Saddam and today many Ba'athists are fighting side by side with the ISIS.

These are all known facts.

Quite clearly Saddam Hussein was a danger to the region and most of all a danger to the oppressed Iraqi people.
The obvious response of Hussein who had no hesitation to bomb or gas his people would have been to do exactly what Assad is currently doing - bombing and gassing his own people.

Intervention in Iraq led to the creation of democratic state - weak and sectarian - but none the less democratic but undermined by the US cut and run.

Non-intervention in Syria has led to civil war, a blind eye turned to the activities of Saudi Arabia and Qatar who have been arming of opposition fighters while Western governments were reluctant to commit troops or even air power to prevent Assad's genocide. Giving the initiative to SA and Qatar has led to the morphing of the Syrian opposition with Iraqi insurgents into the ISIS which is now controlling territory in Syria and Iraq and endangering Iraq's fragile democracy.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons up until 1991 when they were destroyed in secret.

Source for this?

Jihadists co-operated with the Ba'ath regime in the run up to the 2003 invasion and fought on the side of Saddam and today many Ba'athists are fighting side by side with the ISIS.

These are all known facts.

Not at all. The insurgency itself didn't really kick off till several months after the invasion with foreign fighters and jihadists arriving later.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons up until 1991 when they were destroyed in secret. He maintained the infrastructure to begin the manufacture of chemical weapons again when the opportunity arose as the Iraq Survey Group uncovered..

No he did not. There were no factories, no WMD.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam had long held ambitions to become a nuclear power and in 1982 a French built nuclear reactor which would have been used to produce weapon grade nuclear material was blown up by an Israeli airstrike..

...so no nuclear weapons for Saddam. Yes, I know.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein gave financial assistance to Palestinian Islamist terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder the Jews...

Somewhere beneath that hyperbole misrepresentation and hype there's a point trying to get out.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Jihadists co-operated with the Ba'ath regime in the run up to the 2003 invasion and fought on the side of Saddam and today many Ba'athists are fighting side by side with the ISIS....

The Saddam regime was secular, and anti-islamist.

A source for Ba'athists fighting alongside ISIS please.

Azwaldo55

Jonny7 wrote: »

Source for this?

The Iraq Survey Group Report:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm

Following unexpectedly thorough inspections, Saddam ordered Husayn Kamil in July 1991 to destroy unilaterally large numbers of undeclared weapons and related materials to conceal Iraq’s WMD capabilities. This destruction–and Iraq’s failure to document the destruction–greatly complicated UN verification efforts and thereby prolonged UN economic sanctions on Iraq. According to Iraqi Presidential Advisor ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi, the unilateral destruction decision was comparable in its negative consequences for Iraq with the decision to invade Kuwait.

Not at all. The insurgency itself didn't really kick off till several months after the invasion with foreign fighters and jihadists arriving later.

Nonsense. The jihadists and foreign fighters and former Ba'athists were fighting from day one. The Republican Guard threw away their uniforms and began hit and run guerrilla attacks. During the battle for Baghdad American forces advancing on the city center were attacked by suicide jihadists in bomb laden vehicles and when they checked the corpses of plain clothes men who died in fire fights and airstrikes they came across foreign passports and identity papers. This is documented in the book Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad by David Zucchino who interviewed tank crews and infantrymen who fought in the battle.

Syrian jihadists were among those first encountered by U.S. Marine Corps' 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, a unit operating at the very tip of the American advance, whose campaign was documented in the book by Rolling Stone journalist Evan Wright. When they checked corpses of dead fighters they found Syrian papers and U.S. dollars in their pockets paid to them by Saddam himself.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

No he did not. There were no factories, no WMD.

I would encourage you to read the Iraq Survey Group report.
It documents the history of Saddam's vast WMD programs which were still in place ready to go.

...so no nuclear weapons for Saddam. Yes, I know.

Saddam had ambitions to have nuclear weapons, he had stockpiles of chemical weapons in the past which he had used and there was every reason to believe that given they chance he would use them again. His secrecy and failure to open his country to UN weapons inspectors speaks volumes.

The Saddam regime was secular, and anti-islamist.

Saddam was a Sunni, he oppressed the majority Shia and he allied himself with Sunni extremists prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and while on the run sought to control the insurgency.

A source for Ba'athists fighting alongside ISIS please.

Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri has returned to Mosul allied with ISIS fighters where he is seeking to assume leadership of Iraq:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10907319/Iraq-crisis-Red-haired-devil-of-Saddams-Iraq-back-in-the-fray.html

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Syrian jihadists were among those first encountered by U.S. Marine Corps' 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, a unit operating at the very tip of the American advance, whose campaign was documented in the book by Rolling Stone journalist Evan Wright. When they checked corpses of dead fighters they found Syrian papers and U.S. dollars in their pockets paid to them by Saddam himself.

Links please.

Also the previously requested sources for Ba'athist/ISIS co-operation.

Azwaldo55

Nodin wrote: »

Links please.

Go down to your local library and read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Kill-Evan-Wright-ebook/dp/B000OCXGF0

Advancing American forces were attacked by Syrian and Iraqi militia paid by Saddam. They found dead bodies with Syrian papers and U.S. dollars.

Also the previously requested sources for Ba'athist/ISIS co-operation.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-saddam-husseins-generals-fighting-jihadist-isis-insurgency-1452365

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Go down to your local library and read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Kill-Evan-Wright-ebook/dp/B000OCXGF0

Advancing American forces were attacked by Syrian and Iraqi militia paid by Saddam. They found dead bodies with Syrian papers and U.S. dollars.

"Syrian" and "jihadist" are not the same thing. Why can't you provide a proper source?

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-saddam-husseins-generals-fighting-jihadist-isis-insurgency-1452365

Allies of convenience, by the looks of it.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD were destroyed after the 1991 defeat in Kuwait. He never disclosed this to the West and he never allowed UN inspectors into Iraq to find out.
We know he used WMD against the Kurds killing tens of thousands.
We know he had Scud missiles which he once used to bombard Israel and Saudi Arabia and these rocket were capable of being loaded with WMD.
We know he gave support to Palestinian terrorists and had given shelter to the Abu Nudal terrorist organisation.

With all due respect, none of which makes the principle of shoot first, find out if you're shooting at the right guy later any less moronic.

Unfortunately, it was pretty evident at the time that the claims of WMD were very dubious and that Iraq's capabilities had been all but destroyed after years of sanctions and inspections. It was clear to even the casual, literate, man on the streat that the interest was in regime change which was flavour of the month in the Bush administration given the number of members of PNAC who held senior posts in it.

So it went from being about WMD, when none were found it eventually became about regime change and democratization and now we've found that even that failed. Unfortunately, America didn't really bother doing it's homework on Iraq going in, which is why 'Mission Accomplished' became an insurgency that lasted years and eventually a failed state today.

That's the bottom line, and you can soapbox all you want, but it won't change the repeated failures of a doomed series of improvised strategies.

In 2003 all the intelligence services of the major world powers - the Russians, the Chinese, the French - not just the US and the UK - believed Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of weapons.

Ironically, two years earlier Colin Powell believed the opposite when he said "[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours". In the same year Condolezza Rice announced that "we are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt". So, why the sudden U-turn?

Anything less is a murderous and shameful betrayal and will have dire consequences for the West when an ocean of oil falls into the hands of Islamists and the region becomes a jumping board for attacks against Europe.

Indeed. As a European, I would like to thank the US for having single-handedly swelled the ranks of Islamic extremists to thirty times those of 2001, thanks to their ill advised adventures, because we're the first ones to suffer for your incompetence, while you hide on your side of the Atlantic.

Azwaldo55

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed. As a European, I would like to thank the US for having single-handedly swelled the ranks of Islamic extremists to thirty times those of 2001, thanks to their ill advised adventures, because we're the first ones to suffer for your incompetence, while you hide on your side of the Atlantic.

What alternative is there but to fight Islamists and to topple all the dictators and tyrants in the Middle East and introduce democracy to the region?
If the region continues to be ruled by tyrants Islamism will get worse not better.
If Islamists are allowed to win territory and consolidate and win an ocean of oil to finance their terror there will be no chance of a future for the region or the world.
There is no alternative but military action.

High time you woke up.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

What alternative is there but to fight Islamists and to topple all the dictators and tyrants in the Middle East and introduce democracy to the region?
If the region continues to be ruled by tyrants Islamism will get worse not better.
If Islamists are allowed to win territory and consolidate and win an ocean of oil to finance their terror there will be no chance of a future for the region or the world.
There is no alternative but military action.

High time you woke up.

I woke up? How did the invasion of Iraq - a secular nation hostile to Islamists and which diverted military resources from Afghanistan, where there actually were Islamists - manage to "fight Islamists"?

Iraq has all but become a failed state. It's now, not under Saddam, a breeding ground for Islamists. And you're asking what the alternitive is to jumping in like a half-arsed moron who doesn't know his arse from his elbow is?

I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. The policy failed and Europe isn't really interested in having to pay the price for any more of America's experiments in democratization. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic of asymmetrical warfare, before you start recommending strategies.