Tony Blair - Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

Fratton Fred

"FTA69 wrote: »

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. .

Aah, now that's just showing off.

I used to work in a community centre. Our youth club was about 25% Muslim.

When David Platt scored the last minute winner against Belgium 24 years ago, the room exploded. Oddly enough, nothing to do with suicides bombers or jihadists, just plain old supporters of their national team going nuts.

realweirdo

For all those people who think Saddam was a nice guy who should have been left in power and only had Iraq's best interests at heart, they should read this.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

ISIL are bad, but Saddam was a thousand times worse. He succeeded in pacifying the Iraqi people only by killing as many of them as possible. Nor did he merely kill potential trouble makers, he tried to wipe out entire ethnic groups.

The current ISIL advances are heavily backed by the Sunni population who are p*ssed off by Al Malaki. If Al Malaki stepped down, this Sunni offensive would disappear almost overnight. ISIL alone are not strong enough to take Baghdad. But with widespread Sunni backing, they and their allies might be.

old_aussie

realweirdo wrote: »

If Al Malaki stepped down, this Sunni offensive would disappear almost overnight. ISIL alone are not strong enough to take Baghdad. But with widespread Sunni backing, they and their allies might be.

What would be the purpose of al malaki stepping down?

To have the majority shia population elect someone that they don't want?

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

What would be the purpose of al malaki stepping down?

To have the majority shia population elect someone that they didn't want?

Well having him stay on isn't serving much purpose.

old_aussie

Nodin wrote: »

Well having him stay on isn't serving much purpose.

But isn't al malaki the one who was voted for in the elections?

Was he elected by the general elections(public vote), or by the others who were elected to govern?

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

But isn't al malaki the one who was voted for in the elections?

Was he elected by the general elections(public vote), or by the others who were elected to govern?

And now he's made a balls of it, they can vote on him again.

Jonny7

old_aussie wrote: »

But isn't al malaki the one who was voted for in the elections?

Was he elected by the general elections(public vote), or by the others who were elected to govern?

Sadly much of the country looks like it will vote along sectarian lines.. and with the Shia majority a Shia leader is likely to get in

Historically the Shia suffered horrendously under Saddam, this is all within living memory.. and as much as the US/rest of the world wants a unifying leader to take the reins in Iraq, well it just seems the Iraqi is the victim of more powerful forces at play

Especially external forces that have been since approx 2006 doing their utmost to ferment sectarianism between two sides that were already extremely tense

A bit like an external force endlessly blowing up both protestant and catholic in NI to exacerbate the situation

InReality

I think Blair is getting things mixed up.

A shia vs sunni civil in Iraq is not due to "islamic extremism".
Its due to a removal of the existing power structure ( Saddam ).

realweirdo

InReality wrote: »

I think Blair is getting things mixed up.

A shia vs sunni civil in Iraq is not due to "islamic extremism".
Its due to a removal of the existing power structure ( Saddam ).

Saddam was removed eleven years ago. The Iraqis have been given ample time and preparation to get things right, they haven't. In truth, and people like me will be saying it until we are blue in the face, Iraq has no future as a unified state of Sunni, Shia and Kurds. As soon as one group gets an advantage the other group is up in arms. Its impossible to please all three. Give the Sunni their own state, it's what they want after all. If they want to rule it using some 7th century ideology, fine, let them at it. The best that can be achieved is to save the rest of Iraq from this.

The middle east is the most violent and unstable place on earth for one main reason, religion. They are killing each other over arguments that are 1300 years old. The place is a basket case and makes our own little banana republic look modern and progressive.

realweirdo

fr336 wrote: »

Nobody in Britain likes Blair. Nobody.

And that's why he was voted into power 3 times, including after the Iraq War is it?

Ditto George Bush in the US who won against the anti-war Kerry.

Surely elections are the ultimate popularity contest where you can pass judgement on politicians and their policies and Blair remained popular to the end.

realweirdo

Jonny7 wrote: »

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

And reactionary war does work? The 1930s is the classic case. Had the Americans, British and French taken the Nazis seriously, the could easily have defeated Hitler in the late 30s or early 40s in a very localised conflict. Instead the world had to go through a war that cost 50 million lives - another victory for appeasers and non-interventionists, primarily in America. Being anti war in all cases is just nonsense. Some wars, most wars in fact need to be fought.

Nodin

realweirdo wrote: »

Saddam was removed eleven years ago. The Iraqis have been given ample time and preparation to get things right, they haven't. In truth, and people like me will be saying it until we are blue in the face, Iraq has no future as a unified state of Sunni, Shia and Kurds. As soon as one group gets an advantage the other group is up in arms. Its impossible to please all three. Give the Sunni their own state, it's what they want after all. If they want to rule it using some 7th century ideology, fine, let them at it. The best that can be achieved is to save the rest of Iraq from this.

The middle east is the most violent and unstable place on earth for one main reason, religion. They are killing each other over arguments that are 1300 years old. The place is a basket case and makes our own little banana republic look modern and progressive.

Nothing to do with superpower politics, the imposition of borders of from outside......

realweirdo

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing to do with superpower politics, the imposition of borders of from outside......

It's got everything to do with colonial borders. Each country is different, particularly Iraq. While in some countries, two groups can live side by side relatively peacefully, this is never going to happen in Iraq. The Sunnis by and large hate the Shia and the Shia by and large hate the Sunnis. It's a constant struggle to get the upperhand over each other. I saw an interview with a Christian refugee from Mosul the other day who decided to return to the city. He said he hated and feared the Shia led Iraqi government more than ISIL. At this stage its almost a competition to see how many of their opposing group they can kill. And like Syria this will drag on for years and decades, because no-one in the west or elsewhere has the stomach or interest to properly deal with it.

nacho libre

realweirdo wrote: »

It's got everything to do with colonial borders. Each country is different, particularly Iraq. While in some countries, two groups can live side by side relatively peacefully, this is never going to happen in Iraq. The Sunnis by and large hate the Shia and the Shia by and large hate the Sunnis. It's a constant struggle to get the upperhand over each other. I saw an interview with a Christian refugee from Mosul the other day who decided to return to the city. He said he hated and feared the Shia led Iraqi government more than ISIL. At this stage its almost a competition to see how many of their opposing group they can kill. And like Syria this will drag on for years and decades, because no-one in the west or elsewhere has the stomach or interest to properly deal with it.

putting some manners on the house of saud would be a start, but as you imply America won't confront the house of saud.

Jonny7

realweirdo wrote: »

And reactionary war does work? The 1930s is the classic case. Had the Americans, British and French taken the Nazis seriously, the could easily have defeated Hitler in the late 30s or early 40s in a very localised conflict. Instead the world had to go through a war that cost 50 million lives - another victory for appeasers and non-interventionists, primarily in America. Being anti war in all cases is just nonsense. Some wars, most wars in fact need to be fought.

With hindsight

However in 1938 Hitler hadn't fired up the ovens, hadn't tried to invade Europe and everything was speculation. Virtually everyone in power apart from Churchill was terrified of another Great War and there was zero appetitie to trigger another conflict on continental Europe with the most recent so fresh

A pre-emptive war, by it's nature, psycholgically and otherwise has a much slimmer chance of success (defined by its goals) than reactionary - esp regarding international intervention

We all knew that Gbagbo in Ivory coast wasn't going to leave power when he lost the vote, however to pre-empt that would have left him with the moral upper hand, the "victim" and so on. Yet when he didn't leave power, then action could be taken, and it was.

Likewise in Iraq. Saddam had invaded it's neighbour Kuwait in 91 in a very black and white aggressive move - little or no justification, broadly and roundly condemned - the world reacted to this, the main concerns were potential casualties, not the reasoning. It would have been relatively much easier to remove Saddam under those circumstances

Would the country have been able to function/develop? perhaps, perhaps not

Take any country with strong tribal or sectarian divisions, rip out their operating appartus and leadership that has been present for decades and fill the void with death, violence, bombing, external forces perpetuating the violence and so on - the result will be much the same

The Corinthian

realweirdo wrote: »

And reactionary war does work? The 1930s is the classic case. Had the Americans, British and French taken the Nazis seriously, the could easily have defeated Hitler in the late 30s or early 40s in a very localised conflict. Instead the world had to go through a war that cost 50 million lives - another victory for appeasers and non-interventionists, primarily in America. Being anti war in all cases is just nonsense. Some wars, most wars in fact need to be fought.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. So is looking back at history and looking at only those things that turned out to be prophetic and ignoring the rest.

For example, between the World Wars one of the most consistently aggressive nations was Poland, not Germany. It pursued an aggressive and nationalistic foreign policy that included war with neighboring Lithuania.

German expansionism (which occurred only at the end of the interwar period) was considered justified by many. The Sudetenland was ethnically German, after all. That Austria was not part of Germany was seen by many as a historical anomaly. And many felt that Germany had been given a pretty raw deal at Versailles. Indeed, Hitler was admired by many for having turned his country around:

"If our country were defeated [in World War I], I hope we should find a champion as admirable [as Hitler] to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations?" - Winston Churchill, 1937

Even by the late thirties, was Hitler as bad as all that? He was far less aggressive and brutal than the Japanese in China. Or Franco in Spain. Even Mussolini and Stalin were considered bigger problems.

To underline this, consider this quote, one year into World War II:

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without" - Mahatma Gandhi, 1940

But what about the Holocaust, I hear you ask? Truth is, the idea that Germany would carry our an organized genocide was completely alien to everyone. Discrimination sure, atrocities certainly (everyone was at it), but with factory efficiency? Nope. A large part of our reaction to it was how it was carried out, not that it was - after all, Stalin's regime killed more people, he just wasn't as efficient. Oh, and winning the war helped.

Truth is, with people like Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Franco and everyone else, Hitler didn't really stand out as the next Napoleon (that's whom we used to use as the standard before Hitler, btw) any more than anyone else, until it was pretty much too late.

So using the preemptive approach, without the benefit of hindsight, we probably would have gone after Stalin long before Hitler.

Azwaldo55

Syrian war planes launch air strikes against ISIS in Iraq.

BAGHDAD—Syrian warplanes carried out airstrikes in western Iraq, stepping up the military role of the U.S. adversary in helping Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government fight Sunni insurgents.

The strikes on Tuesday came as the Pentagon announced that the first 130 members of a potential 300 U.S. military advisers were in place in Baghdad to start assessing and improving the Iraqi army's ability to counter the gains of rebels led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

At least 50 people were killed and more than 132 others wounded Tuesday when missiles fired from what appeared to be Syrian government planes hit a municipal building, a market and a bank in the district of Al Rutba, according to an Anbar provincial official and Mohammed Al Qubaisi, a doctor in the district's main hospital.

Those people said Tuesday was the second consecutive day of airstrikes by Syria, which has joined Iran in aiding the embattled Baghdad government against the ISIS-led rebels. Tehran has deployed special forces to help protect the capital and the Iraqi cities of Najaf and Karbala, which Shiites revere.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/sunni-rebels-take-complete-control-of-iraqs-largest-oil-refinery-1403605510?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303549304579643821976526200.html

Obviously because Obama has ruled out military action the Maliki government has had to depend on the Assad dictatorship to help them out.

At the same time Iranian forces have been assisting Iraqi forces on the front line while only a few hundred American troops have been sent in.

At the very least American advisers - Rangers, Delta Force, SEALs etc. - should be at the front lines assisting Iraqi commanders, directing air strikes by the USAF from the ground and launching raids against ISIS.

Instead Obama has given surrendered the initiative to Syria and Iran.

U.S. combat troops, tanks, artillery, mechanized and light infantry with air support should be sent right back into the fight.

Obama is a coward and a disgrace.

The Corinthian

Shouldn't you be in a church somewhere, preaching, rather than trying to do so here?

comongethappy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Shouldn't you be in a church somewhere, preaching, rather than trying to do so here?

Not very mod like!

Though his "Obama is a disgrace" thing is a bit silly.

Mid-east issues require a mid-east solution.
If the crushing of ISIS is at the hands of a joint Iran/Iraq effort, then so be it.
Better than the US expending more blood & treasure, when they are damned either way.

Military advisors sent to assist the iraqi army is probably the best worst solution.... If it pleases no one, its probably the right call!

The Corinthian

comongethappy wrote: »

Not very mod like!

What's that got to do with anything? I'm not even a mod here.

My comment was directed at the fact that he is clearly soapboxing, or preaching. He's not actually engaging with other posters and even when he responds ignores what they've actually written so he can go on another monologue. It is an attack on what he's writing, not his person.

Criticizing him openly gives him the opportunity to either prove me wrong or, if he persists, underline the soapboxing as intentional, which will make it easier to report.

comongethappy

The Corinthian wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? I'm not even a mod here.

My comment was directed at the fact that he is clearly soapboxing, or preaching. He's not actually engaging with other posters and even when he responds ignores what they've actually written so he can go on another monologue. It is an attack on what he's writing, not his person.

Criticizing him openly gives him the opportunity to either prove me wrong or, if he persists, underline the soapboxing as intentional, which will make it easier to report.

Fair enough.

Lesser mortals get infractions for same.

The Corinthian

comongethappy wrote: »

Lesser mortals get infractions for same.

I don't want to drag the discussion OT, but where? I don't think that's true at all.

Azwaldo55

The Corinthian wrote: »

Shouldn't you be in a church somewhere, preaching, rather than trying to do so here?

I'm an atheist you moron.

How about you engage with my arguments?

The other posters refused blindly to take on board what I have been saying this whole time. Doubtless none of them read the essay Blair wrote which I linked in the OP.

None of them have refuted the fact that Obama's premature withdrawal of US troops has led to the collapse of Iraq and none of them more importantly are willing to admit the existential threat that an Islamist regime in Syria and Iraq faces both to the region and to the entire world.

Obama was warned not to do what he did but he did it anyway having preached a lunatic anti-war ideology since he first came into office.

The consequences of retreating in the face of Islamic terrorism is now obvious - they gain ground and are emboldened and ready to mount future terror.

The Corinthian

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

How about you engage with my arguments?

The other posters refused blindly to take on board what I have been saying this whole time. Doubtless none of them read the essay Blair wrote which I linked in the OP.

Actually I and others have engaged and rebutted your points repeatedly on a number of occasions and instead of defending your arguments when this happens you've typically just ignored the rebuttals and just continued repeating yourself.

For example, you claim that all the intelligence services of the major World powers believed Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of weapons. I questioned whether this was either true or reliable based upon the fact that two years earlier they were claiming the opposite and even quoted two senior members of the US administration at the time.

What did you do then? Defend your point? No, you just ignored it.

So, when asking others to engage, I suggest you practice what you preach first.

None of them have refuted the fact that Obama's premature withdrawal of US troops has led to the collapse of Iraq and none of them more importantly are willing to admit the existential threat that an Islamist regime in Syria and Iraq faces both to the region and to the entire world.

It's interesting you consider a decade to have been insufficient to have dealt with problems in Iraq. Would two decades have done the trick? Maybe a permanent presence to keep the peace?

Had you perhaps considered that this indicated that the interventionist policy was a failure in the first place and that by repeating the same failed policy we might just repeat this failure? Maybe dig an even bigger hole for ourselves and the Iraqi people?

Obama was warned not to do what he did but he did it anyway having preached a lunatic anti-war ideology since he first came into office.

You do know that it was Obama's predecessor who first set up the timetable for withdrawal? Are you going to ignore this point too?

Zubeneschamali

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's interesting you consider a decade to have been insufficient to have dealt with problems in Iraq. Would two decades have done the trick?

David Corn on John McCain: I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties."

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Obviously because Obama has ruled out military action the Maliki government has had to depend on the Assad dictatorship to help them out.

Assad is helping himself out - ISIS is Syria's enemy, they are just focusing on a much softer target right now and Assad is taking advantage

At the same time Iranian forces have been assisting Iraqi forces on the front line while only a few hundred American troops have been sent in.

At the very least American advisers - Rangers, Delta Force, SEALs etc. - should be at the front lines assisting Iraqi commanders, directing air strikes by the USAF from the ground and launching raids against ISIS.

And when they capture American forces and start beheading them on camera and dragging their bodies through the streets?

Committing forces to Iraq in 2003 turned out to be a very costly, painful exercise - over 4,000 dead Americans, billions lost

They are obviously being extremely careful

Instead Obama has given surrendered the initiative to Syria and Iran.

Initiative? it's not a race or a competition, it's about solving a very serious problem without making a serious ****up that is going to a) make situation worse b) cost more lives

You're talking action in the tinderbox that is Iraq, in the tinderbox that is the Middle East, by the US - not exactly the most popular external force

Azwaldo55

Jonny7 wrote: »

Assad is helping himself out - ISIS is Syria's enemy, they are just focusing on a much softer target right now and Assad is taking advantage



And when they capture American forces and start beheading them on camera and dragging their bodies through the streets?

Committing forces to Iraq in 2003 turned out to be a very costly, painful exercise - over 4,000 dead Americans, billions lost

They are obviously being extremely careful



Initiative? it's not a race or a competition, it's about solving a very serious problem without making a serious ****up that is going to a) make situation worse b) cost more lives

You're talking action in the tinderbox that is Iraq, in the tinderbox that is the Middle East, by the US - not exactly the most popular external force

If Islamism is not defeated in the Middle East it will spread its tentacles to the rest of the world.

Force must be met by force.

Lockstep

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If Islamism is not defeated in the Middle East it will spread its tentacles to the rest of the world.

Force must be met by force.

Coming dangerously close to outright bigotry. Tread carefully here.

Azwaldo55

Lockstep wrote: »

Coming dangerously close to outright bigotry. Tread carefully here.

You can't tell the difference between political Islam i.e. Islamism and the religion of Islam can you?

Educate yourself about Islamism would you?

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

Islamists believe that politics and Islamic principles should be one and the same. Most of them believe in the violent imposition of Islamic principles on society regardless of individual beliefs and regardless of the belief systems of other faiths and Islamic theocrats should rule instead of secular politicians.

That is the ideology of ISIS and the Taliban and Hamas and other Islamist organizations across the world.

It is possible to be a Muslim and not to be an Islamist.
However to be an Islamist often goes hand in hand with violence.
Being a Muslim does not.

So how is bigoted to oppose Islamism?

If you are secular, pro-human rights, pro-women, pro-gay, ant-sectarian, pro-democracy, pro-freedom and pro-humanity you must be anti-Islamist.

The ISIS and other Islamist groups are not just interested in local conflicts but they believe in a global struggle to impose their fundamentalist religious belief on the entire world.

Lockstep

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You can't tell the difference between political Islam i.e. Islamism and the religion of Islam can you?

Educate yourself about Islamism would you?

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

Islamists believe that politics and Islamic principles should be one and the same. Most of them believe in the violent imposition of Islamic principles on society regardless of individual beliefs and regardless of the belief systems of other faiths and Islamic theocrats should rule instead of secular politicians.

That is the ideology of ISIS and the Taliban and Hamas and other Islamist organizations across the world.

It is possible to be a Muslim and not to be an Islamist.
However to be an Islamist often goes hand in hand with violence.
Being a Muslim does not.

So how is bigoted to oppose Islamism?

If you are secular, pro-human rights, pro-women, pro-gay, ant-sectarian, pro-democracy, pro-freedom and pro-humanity you must be anti-Islamist.

The ISIS and other Islamist groups are not just interested in local conflicts but they believe in a global struggle to impose their fundamentalist religious belief on the entire world.

If you have a problem with my moderation, take it to PM or Feedback. Don't question it on the thread, it's in the charter which I suggest you read.