Iraq - Is it Worth the Price?
Discussion
Eric Mc said:Massaging Bliar's ego and keeping oil flowing so that the oil companies can make record profits and Gordon can rake in more tax to waste on chavs?
Are they fulfilling a worthwhile function there?
Sadly they are now needed just to lend some semblance of stability, now that the place is totally screwed up!
Hilts said:
We didn't need to find Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction we Brought them with Us...
The irony of it all,btw Britain suffered its 99th casualty in Iraq yesterday when a soldier with the 1st Battalion Highlanders was shot dead whilst patrolling the Maysan province,probably another sniper casualty?.
Remember Cliff, Hallliburton, the military contractors, the security contractors, and the oil companies are all making a huge profit off this, it is in their interest to continue to the war, a few dead troops are meaningless compared to that kind of $$$!
RIP The Highlander.
Winston Churchill on The Gordon Highlanders "...the finest Regiment there ever was"
Sorry to cross post,but after reading this last post by Hilts it enforces what i already thought,that this conflict is one big con,in the name of oil.
Fair do's SH was an evil B*sta*rd but should we of left him to the natural process of elimination by his own people?.
Have the media hogwashed us all ,and with the rising of the insurgents was SH methods a way of surpressing a divided nation?
I dont know,but i do know if another country invaded the British Isles to plunder its riches and then try the leader ,there would be an understandable opposition.
I feel uncomfortable about this SH trial.
IMO a true one No,a false one yes.
>> Edited by ZR1cliff on Tuesday 31st January 13:25
ZR1cliff said:
Fair do's SH was an evil B*sta*rd but should we of left him to the natural process of elimination by his own people?.
Have the media hogwashed us all ,and with the rising of the insurgents was SH methods a way of surpressing a divided nation?
I dont know,but i do know if another country invaded the British Isles to plunder its riches and then try the leader ,there would be an understandable opposition.
I feel uncomfortable about this SH trial.
IMO a true one No,a false one yes.
>> Edited by ZR1cliff on Tuesday 31st January 13:25
I agree, but what about Mugabe, he could arguably be placed in the same league as SH, and he's still in power, allowing his soldiers to rape/murder/steal with absolute impunity! There are horror stories all around the world, I guess we only care if oil supplies are perceived to be at risk, why can't the governments be honest about this, for once?
putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside..
i'd like to pose a question.
Did Britain really need to be as involved as deeply as it was.?
If we had not joined the Americans in the invasion, would it have really affected the outcome of the war?
I doubt it because the Americans would have gone in anyway at somepoint, and with their vastly superior air power
technology, the result would have been the same, surely. (that is not to detract from the good work done and good reputation earned by the majority of british troops, as compared to the americans.)Saddam would have been coaught regardless.
So what exactly have we as a nation benefitted from, compared to say Sweden, or Norway, by having our troops there.?
this post isnt meant to be political or cynical in any way..im just interested in what other Phers think that Britain has got out of this.
i'd like to pose a question.
Did Britain really need to be as involved as deeply as it was.?
If we had not joined the Americans in the invasion, would it have really affected the outcome of the war?
I doubt it because the Americans would have gone in anyway at somepoint, and with their vastly superior air power
technology, the result would have been the same, surely. (that is not to detract from the good work done and good reputation earned by the majority of british troops, as compared to the americans.)Saddam would have been coaught regardless.
So what exactly have we as a nation benefitted from, compared to say Sweden, or Norway, by having our troops there.?
this post isnt meant to be political or cynical in any way..im just interested in what other Phers think that Britain has got out of this.
peterpeter said:
putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside..
i'd like to pose a question.
Did Britain really need to be as involved as deeply as it was.?
If we had not joined the Americans in the invasion, would it have really affected the outcome of the war?
I doubt it because the Americans would have gone in anyway at somepoint, and with their vastly superior air power
technology, the result would have been the same, surely. (that is not to detract from the good work done and good reputation earned by the majority of british troops, as compared to the americans.)Saddam would have been coaught regardless.
So what exactly have we as a nation benefitted from, compared to say Sweden, or Norway, by having our troops there.?
this post isnt meant to be political or cynical in any way..im just interested in what other Phers think that Britain has got out of this.
Being harsh I would say we get a battle honed army, well tested with the chance to weed out sloopy methods, bureaucracy and other bllox. If our armed forces never see action we would be in the same shape as our Navy was pre-WW1, that is sclerotic.
In addition we get a chance to position ourselves as the USA's prime ally, giving ourselves options if we need to ditch the EU. The Yanks would welcome us into NAFTA if we wanted it. (and I would really prefer that we did ditch the EU and join NAFTA!)
peterpeter said:
im just interested in what other Phers think that Britain has got out of this.
We have maintained/furthered out special relationship with America at (arguably) the cost of worsening our relationship with Europe. Whether this is a good thing or not is a whole different debate.
chris watton said:
Fair do's SH was an evil B*sta*rd but should we of left him to the natural process of elimination by his own people?.
Have the media hogwashed us all ,and with the rising of the insurgents was SH methods a way of surpressing a divided nation?
I dont know,but i do know if another country invaded the British Isles to plunder its riches and then try the leader ,there would be an understandable opposition.
I feel uncomfortable about this SH trial.
IMO a true one No,a false one yes.
>> Edited by ZR1cliff on Tuesday 31st January 13:25
I agree, but what about Mugabe, he could arguably be placed in the same league as SH, and he's still in power, allowing his soldiers to rape/murder/steal with absolute impunity! There are horror stories all around the world, I guess we only care if oil supplies are perceived to be at risk, why can't the governments be honest about this, for once?
Damn straight. Mugabe is quite quite and evil bastard. Still, where are the super powers to debunk him? He has domestically probably killed more than SH and needs to be ousted fast.
peterpeter said:
Did Britain really need to be as involved as deeply as it was.?
Yes.
Britian has a bakebone unlike the French and Germans, and we value freedoms unlike the French and Germans. The price is freedom is measured in blood unforunately - it always has been and it probably will for a few more decades yet.
If it had been about oil, we would of left Saddam in place, and just bought the stuff off of him.
Does the "Special Relationship" exist in reality, or only in the minds of British politicians.
When Britain called on the Special Relationship in 1956 all it got was a blank refusal.
Is Britain waiting for the next opportunity to cash in its largess with the Bush Administration and if so, will Washington oblige?
When Britain called on the Special Relationship in 1956 all it got was a blank refusal.
Is Britain waiting for the next opportunity to cash in its largess with the Bush Administration and if so, will Washington oblige?
I think that it was wrong to go in and, now that we are well and truly in, we can't seem to get out!
It was a big mistake even though I agree that Saddam had to go, but we've now become embroiled in a no win situation that we can't even get out of. We don't want to be there and they don't want us there.
I think that we, or rather Blair, were/was too keen to side with our American friends, who wanted to go in regardless.
- and all with tragic consequences.
>> Edited by Davel on Tuesday 31st January 14:02
It was a big mistake even though I agree that Saddam had to go, but we've now become embroiled in a no win situation that we can't even get out of. We don't want to be there and they don't want us there.
I think that we, or rather Blair, were/was too keen to side with our American friends, who wanted to go in regardless.
- and all with tragic consequences.
>> Edited by Davel on Tuesday 31st January 14:02
Eric Mc said:
Does the "Special Relationship" exist in reality, or only in the minds of British politicians.
When Britain called on the Special Relationship in 1956 all it got was a blank refusal.
Is Britain waiting for the next opportunity to cash in its largess with the Bush Administration and if so, will Washington oblige?
I guess the 'special relationship' is a pretty nebulous thing. If there is an insular administration in the states it may not mean much to them. Generally though the amount of integration between our armed forces and intelligence services is something special.
tinman0 said:
Yes.
Britian has a bakebone unlike the French and Germans, and we value freedoms unlike the French and Germans. The price is freedom is measured in blood unforunately - it always has been and it probably will for a few more decades yet.
"Britain" has a backbone, don't make me laugh, who the hell asked "Britain"? Tony Blair and his merry men made the decision not us.
tinman0 said:
If it had been about oil, we would of left Saddam in place, and just bought the stuff off of him.
Or oust him using US Taxpayers money, then use private contractors with very dubious links to those in power to extract the oil. Sounds like a win-win for the Republican admin..
Still lets kid ourselves we did the "right" thing, and that we weren't hoodwinked into going to war.
Tinman - that is rather meaningless - we like Yanks, they like us - big deal.
It doesn't mean we have to go to war everytime they suggest it. If Britain expected something in return for their support in this enterprise, when are they going to get their reward?
We haven't got much time left - Bush will be out of office in a couple of years.
As for Britain and the US being freedom loving peoples - they are, but unfortunately neither of our current administrations seem to think that too much freedom for their own citizens is a good thing.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 31st January 14:04
It doesn't mean we have to go to war everytime they suggest it. If Britain expected something in return for their support in this enterprise, when are they going to get their reward?
We haven't got much time left - Bush will be out of office in a couple of years.
As for Britain and the US being freedom loving peoples - they are, but unfortunately neither of our current administrations seem to think that too much freedom for their own citizens is a good thing.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 31st January 14:04
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff