Tony Blair - Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

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.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The Iraq Survey Group Report:

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

There were WMD and associated delivery methods remaining in the country after '91 - which later teams found and were admitted to by the Iraqis

Inspectators were out of the country from about '98 and returned in 2002, where they found no evidence of useable WMD's

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.

Actually the vast bulk of the army just fled and didn't fight at all. Some units managed to put up a bit of resistqnce, but it was a very one-sided affair, they fell quickly and the most difficult aspect of the invasion was dealing with the looting/lawlessness and lack of admin rather than the sporadic attacks

Ba'aathist loyalists and Sunni militia's like the Fedayeen did keep up a low intensity insurgency which grew gradually, there was plenty of cash, there were plenty of unemployed now ex-military who sold their skills

However there were few if any 'jihadists', as you put it, (religious warriors, Islamists) - they were not there in any numbers during or immediately after the invasion - they came later flooding in from all corners through the porous borders, from the Dernah region in Libya, Yemen, even Chechnya - all with their own varied motives

old_aussie

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

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.

No,

The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.

The Sunnis prevailed and chose a successor to be the first caliph.
Eventually, Ali was chosen as the fourth caliph, but not before violent conflict broke out. Two of the earliest caliphs were murdered. War erupted when Ali became caliph, and he too was killed in fighting in the year 661 near the town of Kufa, now in present-day Iraq.

The violence and war split the small community of Muslims into two branches that would never reunite.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

And it's the same war that's still carrying on today in Iraq, for 1382 years and will continue to do so until these people realise what the cause of all this is.

Long before the west was even thought of.

Islam's what's restarted this sectarian religious war again.

Azwaldo55

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

So you are quite happy for Iraq to now become an Islamist state funding terror around the world financed by an ocean of oil?

Islamism is sweeping the globe and Islamists in the West will be emboldened and launch insurgencies on our streets.

There are large Muslim populations in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the UK who will take their marching orders from the the Mid East and will seek to impose their religion on us all.

If you want to live in denial go right ahead.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So you are quite happy for Iraq to now become an Islamist state funding terror around the world financed by an ocean of oil?

I'm quite happy to ignore that school of thought that thought invading was a good idea in the first place.

It is a school that has lost all credibility.

If you want to live in denial go right ahead.

Would this be that place where the US invasion of Iraq was not a complete clusterfùck?

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So you are quite happy for Iraq to now become an Islamist state funding terror around the world financed by an ocean of oil?

Islamism is sweeping the globe and Islamists in the West will be emboldened and launch insurgencies on our streets.

There are large Muslim populations in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the UK who will take their marching orders from the the Mid East and will seek to impose their religion on us all.

If you want to live in denial go right ahead.

Hysteria.

Nodin

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So you are quite happy for Iraq to now become an Islamist state funding terror around the world financed by an ocean of oil?

Islamism is sweeping the globe and Islamists in the West will be emboldened and launch insurgencies on our streets.

There are large Muslim populations in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the UK who will take their marching orders from the the Mid East and will seek to impose their religion on us all.

If you want to live in denial go right ahead.

Dear god that's awful nonsense, tbh.

Eggy Baby!

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

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.

No. Be anti-war at all times. By this I mean we have to hate war at all times. If it's a necessity to wage war to survive, then so be it, but your love for Tony Blair, one of the slimiest warmongers of our time, is misplaced.

What you also seem to conveniently forget is that your American role models ****ed up Iraq in two wars in the first place.

Lastly, the United States is cosying up with some of the biggest supporters of extremism in the Middle East/Central Asia sans Iran- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Now its cosying up to Iran. Save us America!

Zubeneschamali

Powell again, 15 May 2001:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. [/FONT]

Knob Longman

Magaggie wrote: »

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

The Iran Iraq War, The one where the US sold crack so it could use the profits to secretly arm Iran..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

I live in a mixed race/religion area so I don't have that "Muslims are terrorists" attitude, Rather the opposite..So I hate seeing what is going on in the Middle East.

And all that House of Said money that spreads extremism, Ironic that its our petrol money..

FTA69

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

There are large Muslim populations in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the UK who will take their marching orders from the the Mid East and will seek to impose their religion on us all.

If you want to live in denial go right ahead.

Funnily enough I'm sitting in the heart of a Muslim majority area now and I feel pretty safe. The sun is shining and people are coming back from Friday prayers. The cafes are full and there are smells of coffee and home-cooked curry coming from the flats. There are a group of young single mothers in the community centre I'm based in and they're chatting while the kids play with lego. Anam and Monowar are still at prayers and texted me to say they'll bring me back a few chapatis and lentils.

Hopefully they won't murder me when they get back for some reason. :rolleyes:

It may cause you a bit of shock and panic, but most Muslims in the UK were born and raised here. They're British and know no other country. Interestingly enough, a higher percentage of Muslims here are "proud to be British" than their white Christian counterparts. They are as part of this nation as anyone else.

The fact you think they are some sort of homogenous alien horde as opposed to rational human beings who think for themselves says a lot about you mate.

Your opinions are baseless, rooted in a deep-seated hostility and are just plain nasty.