So, George and Tony, do you still think toppling Saddam was a good idea?

goldstone · Jan 9, 2015

Your intention, I recall, was to make Iraq a better place for Iraquis. Yup, they're all ecstatically happy now that half their country has been taken over by extremists. And the rest of the world's population is equally ecstatic about the chaos that ISIS has caused.

And as if we hadn't learned a lesson about better the devil you know, off we go to assist with overthrowing Gadaffi. Another important step in creating lasting peace in the Middle East? What has followed Muammar? Chaos and virtual anarchy in Libya.

A big WELL DONE all round. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, as Laurel and Hardy would have said.

When will we ever learn to stop interfering in the internal matters of other countries and trying to impose western democracy on those who don't want it.

Rant over .... for the moment.

Don Quixote · Jan 9, 2015

It seems even countries against the invasion are being attacked.

Stumpy Tim · Jan 9, 2015

Don Quixote said:
It seems even countries against the invasion are being attacked.

The Paris attack has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with those cartoons. Having said that, if the cartoons didn't exist they would have found a different reason to cause bloody mayhem

Thunder Bolt · Jan 9, 2015

What caused the problems with Yemen and Nigeria? It's not as easy as blaming the Iraq war. The whole Middle East has been a powder keg for 100 years.

Tricky Dicky · Jan 9, 2015

Not sure there's really any such thing as "internal matters of countries" these days. Most things have wider, if not global influence now. Whether that's a good thing or bad, I have no idea.

Thunder Bolt · Jan 9, 2015

Mustafa said:
It was becoming more and more stable. Saddam was a very bad man, but he was moving Iraq forward and there was relative stability in his country - if the war never happened, by now he would be 80 years old, so he wouldn't have had long left anyway - and whatever or whoever came next could have been an improvement, and almost certainly better than what they have now.

Syria too was moving forward before the Arab Spring and we, for some obscene reason, decided to aid and arm the terrorists. It was a beautiful, secular nation with a cultured and educated population - out of all those countries in the Middle East it would would been the most likely to discover democracy... but now it's absolute hell on earth, unimaginable suffering every day.

While our main incentive was to spread our idea of democracy onto countries that don't have it, I can't help but think there were ulterior motives too - perhaps destabilisation of the Middle East is profitable, just a hunch.

It wasn't getting stable. Egypt had a war, Syria was at war as was Lebanon. Iran (was Persia) overthrew the Shah. It's far more complicated than a simple west versus east.

pastafarian · Jan 9, 2015

i suspect the best people to ask the question whether or not his downfall was a good idea would not be George or Tony but the countless 100`s of thousands if not millions who were killed,maimed,raped,imprisoned and tortured during his regime not only by his hand but also from his wider family.

nicko31 · Jan 9, 2015

And then there was Cameron who wanted us to go into Syria a year ago, politician learn nothing from history

Hastings gull · Jan 9, 2015

Mustafa said:
It was becoming more and more stable. Saddam was a very bad man, but he was moving Iraq forward and there was relative stability in his country - if the war never happened, by now he would be 80 years old, so he wouldn't have had long left anyway - and whatever or whoever came next could have been an improvement, and almost certainly better than what they have now.

Syria too was moving forward before the Arab Spring and we, for some obscene reason, decided to aid and arm the terrorists. It was a beautiful, secular nation with a cultured and educated population - out of all those countries in the Middle East it would would been the most likely to discover democracy... but now it's absolute hell on earth, unimaginable suffering every day.

While our main incentive was to spread our idea of democracy onto countries that don't have it, I can't help but think there were ulterior motives too - perhaps destabilisation of the Middle East is profitable, just a hunch.

I think you might be confusing stability with oppression. Ask the Kurds and the families of the 800,000 who died during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, then the Kuwaitis and Iraqis who died during the Gulf War, if they thought there was relative stability. You do say, to be fair, that he was bad, but the idea that there was stability is, I suspect, far from the truth. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as the saying goes, and whilst it is probably much worse now in terms of everyday life, life under SH came a very close second best. Yes, he might now be 80 years old, but I shudder to think how many would have died in all those years under his and his corrupt family's despotic rule.

vegster · Jan 9, 2015

goldstone said:
Your intention, I recall, was to make Iraq a better place for Iraquis. Yup, they're all ecstatically happy now that half their country has been taken over by extremists. And the rest of the world's population is equally ecstatic about the chaos that ISIS has caused.

And as if we hadn't learned a lesson about better the devil you know, off we go to assist with overthrowing Gadaffi. Another important step in creating lasting peace in the Middle East? What has followed Muammar? Chaos and virtual anarchy in Libya.

A big WELL DONE all round. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, as Laurel and Hardy would have said.

When will we ever learn to stop interfering in the internal matters of other countries and trying to impose western democracy on those who don't want it.

Rant over .... for the moment.

Iraq under Saddam was a nominally Muslim country held together unwillingly by Saddams brutal secret service and army. It was a kind of Yugoslavia with sand. when he went the relative factions were then able to start knocking lumps out of each other. When communism fell apart there were successes and failures,the likes of Poland,East Germany and Czechoslovakia became better places as democracy slotted in to place but Yugoslavia failed, it's one of those things.

beorhthelm · Jan 9, 2015

Mustafa said:
It was becoming more and more stable. Saddam was a very bad man, but he was moving Iraq forward ...

Syria too was moving forward before the Arab Spring...

no doubt you'd have said Cambodia was moving forward under Pol Pot.

Chicken Runner61 · Jan 9, 2015

And Libya thats nice and safe now

Stat Brother · Jan 9, 2015

Who could have known war would lead to more war.

If only there was some kind of:-
events happening in the past that we could learn from,

type situation.

Rich, privileged, white, men, roaming around the planet doing what they damn well please, when they please, to whom they please, in order to gain even more wealth and power.

Share the wealth, share the power, share the resources, share the love.
Lace flowers into your hair and hug it out people, it can't make things worse, can it?

Czechmate · Jan 9, 2015

beorhthelm said:
no doubt you'd have said Cambodia was moving forward under Pol Pot.

Oh is that the same war the US dropped bombs on Laos which equated to 3 tons per person of the entire population ? or have i got the wrong war ?

Czechmate · Jan 9, 2015

vegster said:
Iraq under Saddam was a nominally Muslim country held together unwillingly by Saddams brutal secret service and army. It was a kind of Yugoslavia with sand. when he went the relative factions were then able to start knocking lumps out of each other. When communism fell apart there were successes and failures,the likes of Poland,East Germany and Czechoslovakia became better places as democracy slotted in to place but Yugoslavia failed, it's one of those things.[/QUOT

I can only speak for the Czech Republic and investment has been made and more global companies have invested in the country but they still live the ways of communism , like a free flat on the edge of the cities , cheap trams into the city centres to work , cheap drink , cigarettes and food , so communism not all that bad , they still love a drop of the old Vodka too Prague is more commercial of course .

Hampster Gull · Jan 9, 2015

Understandable to try and blame someone and in doing so reinforce their previous views as being right. But this is complex and no one event drove this. And no one thing will solve it.

clapham_gull · Jan 9, 2015

Horribly naive simplistic argument that I have very little time for.

I have a bigger problem with the Western Goverments assisting nutters like Hussein get into power and keep them there for decades.

I take the probably controversial view that it wasn't that bad a thing to get rid of him. It was the way they went about it (and not doing the job properly last time) that was wrong. I suggest you read some books regarding his regime.

Blame Blair of course (the timing was ridiculous) but equally blame the previous Conservative and American regimes that were quite happy to arm him and pump up his ego.

The hypocrisy of the British public does annoy me at times. The decision to invade Afghanistan was quite "popular" at the time.

The fundamentalism predates this anyway for God's sake. Bin Laden was originally agrieved that Saudi Arabia allowed their air bases to be used after Kuwait was invaded.

It definitely something that has gradually been stoked by numerous conflicts but to imply it was caused by the second Iraq conflict is nonsense.

Stat Brother · Jan 9, 2015

Hampster Gull said:
But this is complex and no one event drove this. And no one thing will solve it.

But the same bottom line, war, is driving it.
No one thing will solve it, all the time that bottom line remains a constant.

SIMMO SAYS · Jan 9, 2015

goldstone said:
Your intention, I recall, was to make Iraq a better place for Iraquis. Yup, they're all ecstatically happy now that half their country has been taken over by extremists. And the rest of the world's population is equally ecstatic about the chaos that ISIS has caused.

And as if we hadn't learned a lesson about better the devil you know, off we go to assist with overthrowing Gadaffi. Another important step in creating lasting peace in the Middle East? What has followed Muammar? Chaos and virtual anarchy in Libya.

A big WELL DONE all round. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, as Laurel and Hardy would have said.

When will we ever learn to stop interfering in the internal matters of other countries and trying to impose western democracy on those who don't want it.

Rant over .... for the moment.

The Music Box is my Laurel and Hardy favourite film.
Your rant is a waste of your internet life.
I would like to know where I can get a second hand machine gun

kevo · Jan 9, 2015

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

So, George and Tony, do you still think toppling Saddam was a good idea?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

New member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sanity Clause

A. Virgo, Football Genius

We stand where we want!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Legacy Fan

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page