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

[wellquickwoody]

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.

20/20 hindsight vision, if only everyone had it the world would be a much better place.

Time to move on.

 

[Beach Hut]

Unfortunately Western policies have alienated large sections of the Arab states.

I always remember on the night of 9/11 Paxman was interviewing the USA Ambassador for the UK and he asked him - Do you actually accept a lot of Arab countries hate the USA and the answer was no.

The alienation has been picked up by radicals who will feed these people to be foot soldiers for their cause, I am struggling to think of how, if ever, this hatred and madness will ever stop.

 

[Soulman]

Aden was a Crown colony until 1963, well within living memory. The Italians were in Somalia until the mid 40s. Nigeria (the whole country) was a British colony until 1960 - again well within living memory.

Iv'e just had a chat with Angela Merkel, she's ok with taking the blame for the troubles in the UK today because it's all down to what happened in the late 30's
from her country.

 

[symyjym]

The Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia was a big success.

It was successful with UN and world backing.

With the Iraq war we ignored the world, lied, and told the UN to swivel.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Sometimes you need to concede that the only thing holding a country together is fear of a particular leader or the consequences of deliberately breaking up the country. Once Tito died in Yugoslavia break-up was inevitable because of the significant ethnic and religious divides between the various nation states that made up that union.

Iraq is similar. The Sunnis and Shiites have never got a long and the Kurds want independence. Only Saddam's iron grip held that country together.

But in both cases they were 'false' countries, inevitably doomed to fall apart. In the case of Iraq if then if the West had never intervened the break-up would have happened as soon as Saddam would have got too old or died. The point is it would have happened sooner or later.

It is ridiculous to think that with no interference from the West these countries would be harmonious, peace-loving and prosperous. Democracy has never flourished in this region, there's always a despot - some good and some bad.

But the west encouraged ethnic and religious divides - Britain divided and conquered thats how we and other nations gained our empires, even in the last 30 years we have armed both parties and set shia's against sunnis, we armed the taliban, and Al Quieda and got them to do our dirty work sometimes.

We created the Palestine problem, we helped destabilise the Middle east and encouraged the Arab spring across Egypt and Libya and what has that democracy got us? We have created a total mess with our meddling and arms sales. We don't even know who is on our side anymore as best explained in a letter sent to the times

Dear Sir

Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!

Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

KN Al-Sabah,

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Yeah, i suppose so, i mean iv'e lived in this bungalow for nearly 20 years and i still blame the previous owner for not having a gas supply in the kitchen for my gas oven. The 40's and 1960, you mean 56 and 70 years ago.....blimey desperate to blame or what for the troubles TODAY.

The troubles of today have their roots in the past and only a fool refuses to acknowledge how deep rooted many conflicts are - perhaps the one thing Goldstone1976 didn't mention was all those colonies had their borders arbitrarily drawn up by colonial powers without regard to ethnicity or religion.

And just to emphasis the point about going back perhaps you'd care to look how the conflict in Northern Ireland shaped out over the centuries.

 

[Soulman]

And just to emphasis the point about going back perhaps you'd care to look how the conflict in Northern Ireland shaped out over the centuries.

Did the troubles between Protestants and Catholics of Ireland spread worldwide then, i did not hear much about them bombing over the other side of the world.
Maybe they will pop up in France any day now.

 

[goldstone]

It is ridiculous to think that with no interference from the West these countries would be harmonious, peace-loving and prosperous. Democracy has never flourished in this region, there's always a despot - some good and some bad.

I don't think that at all, but if the west hadn't interfered they would have in due course overthrown their leaders themselves, had their own domestic wars, and the west wouldn't have been to blame. And we would have saved the lives of thousands of British and American troops.

So what we need to do is leave these countries to sort out their own internal problems ... AND NOT GET INVOLVED.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Did the troubles between Protestants and Catholics of Ireland spread worldwide then, i did not hear much about them bombing over the other side of the world.
Maybe they will pop up in France any day now.

Well they were all over Europe which was / is the extent of the protestant map so yes really

 

[Soulman]

I don't think that at all, but if the west hadn't interfered they would have in due course overthrown their leaders themselves, had their own domestic wars, and the west wouldn't have been to blame. And we would have saved the lives of thousands of British and American troops.

So what we need to do is leave these countries to sort out their own internal problems ... AND NOT GET INVOLVED.

Hear hear, but you know the bleeding hearts that blame the West would then blame and decry the West if we did NOT get involved......how could we sit back and watch civilians be slaughtered by ruling despots etc etc.....it happened when it took weeks for any involvement in Yugoslavia.....damned if you do and damned if you don't. So as you say, keep out of it.

 

[symyjym]

20/20 hindsight vision, if only everyone had it the world would be a much better place.

Time to move on.

Robin Cook and Clare short had 20/20 foresight and predicted the creation of a power vacuum in the Middle East. It was understood by many that it could turn out to be a recruitment advert for Islamic extremist. I understood the risk at the time going against the UN and the world, and if that is our democracy we have not set a good example for the meaning of the word.

Many knew at the time that a backlash was a real possibility so the hindsight argument it a weak one.

 

[beorhthelm]

Did the troubles between Protestants and Catholics of Ireland spread worldwide then

the problems in Ireland were the result of europe wide conflict between those sects.

 

[supaseagull]

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.

Sorry but your comments shows your complete ignorance in this matter.

9/11 was in 2001
The bombings in Riyadh were in 1996
The Yemeni attacks took place in 1992

All three were atrocities caused by Al Qaeda extremists before Iraq.

 

[symyjym]

I don't think that at all, but if the west hadn't interfered they would have in due course overthrown their leaders themselves, had their own domestic wars, and the west wouldn't have been to blame. And we would have saved the lives of thousands of British and American troops.

So what we need to do is leave these countries to sort out their own internal problems ... AND NOT GET INVOLVED.

Yep, Saddam was on his knees at the time and we were in a great position to dictate to him. He wasn’t going to be in power for eternity and probably would have died of natural causes by now. Instigating the hundreds of thousands of lives cut short, either directly or indirectly, for the sake of taking a few years off one man was insane.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Sorry but your comments shows your complete ignorance in this matter.

9/11 was in 2001
The bombings in Riyadh were in 1996
The Yemeni attacks took place in 1992

All three were atrocities caused by Al Qaeda extremists before Iraq.

Isn't that his point? we went into Iraq to get rid of Sadam not Al Qaeda - Isis and fundamental islamists have taken control of Iraq after we got rid of Sadam

 

[fat old seagull]

L

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.

I agree with your sentiments regarding Bush n Blair. But I'm sure the Muslim extremist issue was always going to raise its ugly head at sometime.
I was, I think I'm permitted to say informed about that concern more than two decades ago by a foreign military associate. At that time Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were unknown to me. But they were already under the attention of our friends 'over the pond'. I personally don't believe it's reached its hiatus yet.
And again, in my view and only that, our best tactics would be to 'best friend' Muslims and encourage them to expel extremists and award them pariah status. They are best dealt with from within.

 

[Soulman]

Here's another thing in common that all four countries you mention have:

Chad: Colonised by the French
Nigeria: Colonised by the Brits
Yemen: Colonised by the Ottomans and the Brits
Somalia: Colonised by the Brits and the Italians

It's amazing what trends you can find if you try.

Yep and a population of over 90% Muslim. The Commonwealth (colonised) seems to be fairly trouble free, can you spot the difference?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Yep and a population of over 90% Muslim. The Commonwealth (colonised) seems to be fairly trouble free, can you spot the difference?

Ah, you're referring to Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Rwanda, Pakistan, India, Kenya and Bangladesh - Commonwealth countries all, and not a jot of trouble in any of them. Not forgetting Nigeria itself, of course.

BTW, I'm flattered you've replied to the same post three times

 

[Soulman]

BTW, I'm flattered you've replied to the same post three times

No problem, probably made your night eh.

 

[Soulman]

Ah, you're referring to Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Rwanda, Pakistan, India, Kenya and Bangladesh - Commonwealth countries all, and not a jot of trouble in any of them. Not forgetting Nigeria itself, of course.

BTW, I'm flattered you've replied to the same post three times

Yeah, deserves another reply. True we could do with dumping a few of these Commonwealth countries, we know who the decent Commonwealth countries are. (again)