Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

[greenmark]

We stopped Saddam who was a brutal dictator on the verge of invading neighbouring countries.

Interesting. Does that mean we should be bombing Russia? They are led by a brutal dictator who is invading neighbouring countries! Also what was the cost in lives of the Iraq campaign, not just military but also civilian deaths in the civil war that followed!

Come on. The risks of invading Russia would be catastrophic.
The coalition invaded Iraq to protect Kuwait and snuff out Saddam's expansionist intentions.
Iraq is still a mess for sure. But it was a mess before Saddam took control (with western and russian support). A tribal cauldron which is what it has returned to. But the coalition achieved their aim - create an envionment where the factions fight themselves.
All terribly ugly and cynical and predates Saddam.

[Archery1969]

If you get me a B2 stealth bomber plus flying lessons then I will attempt to bomb Russia. I would need to it 76 targets with my 80 x 500lb payload. Not allot of room for error. But I will give it a go.

[ForFolksSake]

If you get me a B2 stealth bomber plus flying lessons then I will attempt to bomb Russia. I would need to it 76 targets with my 80 x 500lb payload. Not allot of room for error. But I will give it a go.

Have a word with Zelensky - he might take up your offer.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UZVvymTe ... ture=share

[Archery1969]

If you get me a B2 stealth bomber plus flying lessons then I will attempt to bomb Russia. I would need to it 76 targets with my 80 x 500lb payload. Not allot of room for error. But I will give it a go.

Have a word with Zelensky - he might take up your offer.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UZVvymTe ... ture=share

Probably better to have a word with Elon Musk.

[ForFolksSake]

If you get me a B2 stealth bomber plus flying lessons then I will attempt to bomb Russia. I would need to it 76 targets with my 80 x 500lb payload. Not allot of room for error. But I will give it a go.

Have a word with Zelensky - he might take up your offer.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UZVvymTe ... ture=share

Probably better to have a word with Elon Musk.

He's best of mates with Putin though, isn't he

[Archery1969]

Have a word with Zelensky - he might take up your offer.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UZVvymTe ... ture=share

Probably better to have a word with Elon Musk.

He's best of mates with Putin though, isn't he

Not sure as he supplied Ukraine with the starlink communications system for free.

[firlandsfarm]

We stopped Saddam who was a brutal dictator on the verge of invading neighbouring countries.

Interesting. Does that mean we should be bombing Russia? They are led by a brutal dictator who is invading neighbouring countries! Also what was the cost in lives of the Iraq campaign, not just military but also civilian deaths in the civil war that followed!

Come on. The risks of invading Russia would be catastrophic.
The coalition invaded Iraq to protect Kuwait and snuff out Saddam's expansionist intentions.
Iraq is still a mess for sure. But it was a mess before Saddam took control (with western and russian support). A tribal cauldron which is what it has returned to. But the coalition achieved their aim - create an envionment where the factions fight themselves.
All terribly ugly and cynical and predates Saddam.

I was just making the point that Iraq was a 'weak' bully whereas Russia would be a much stronger bully ... so you should only take on the bullies we can defeat! And I'm not convinced about the reasons for Iraq ... seems to me Tony Blah committed a war crime by seeking regime change with no valid reason.

[conduirez]

Tony Blah

Love it, firlandfarm you have the best quote of the week " Tony Blah" I want to add "Tony Blah and Kier Stammer", but Tony blah, brilliant and so true.

[greenmark]

Interesting. Does that mean we should be bombing Russia? They are led by a brutal dictator who is invading neighbouring countries! Also what was the cost in lives of the Iraq campaign, not just military but also civilian deaths in the civil war that followed!

Come on. The risks of invading Russia would be catastrophic.
The coalition invaded Iraq to protect Kuwait and snuff out Saddam's expansionist intentions.
Iraq is still a mess for sure. But it was a mess before Saddam took control (with western and russian support). A tribal cauldron which is what it has returned to. But the coalition achieved their aim - create an envionment where the factions fight themselves.
All terribly ugly and cynical and predates Saddam.

I was just making the point that Iraq was a 'weak' bully whereas Russia would be a much stronger bully ... so you should only take on the bullies we can defeat! And I'm not convinced about the reasons for Iraq ... seems to me Tony Blah committed a war crime by seeking regime change with no valid reason.

Ok. I agree with all that. Except allowing Saddam to career around the Middle East wasn't an option. He was just the nastiest piece of work in a nasty, unstable place.
For me it was Blair's treatment of David Kelly that really ground my gears. Talk about being hung out to dry!

[firlandsfarm]

I was just making the point that Iraq was a 'weak' bully whereas Russia would be a much stronger bully ... so you should only take on the bullies we can defeat! And I'm not convinced about the reasons for Iraq ... seems to me Tony Blah committed a war crime by seeking regime change with no valid reason.

Ok. I agree with all that. Except allowing Saddam to career around the Middle East wasn't an option. He was just the nastiest piece of work in a nasty, unstable place.
For me it was Blair's treatment of David Kelly that really ground my gears. Talk about being hung out to dry!

But was Iraq unstable? It may not have been top of most people's list of where to live but I seem to recall it was stable. It's a bit like the retreating British Empire syndrome ... countries were relatively stable while the Brits ruled but civil war would break out as soon at the last mooring rope was cast aside from the quay!

I agree re Kelly ... and followed by a big hush-up. We talk of people like Putin exercising tight control over events but Blair controlled anything at that time and the aftermaths re enquiries etc. that could have pulled him down.

[greenmark]

I was just making the point that Iraq was a 'weak' bully whereas Russia would be a much stronger bully ... so you should only take on the bullies we can defeat! And I'm not convinced about the reasons for Iraq ... seems to me Tony Blah committed a war crime by seeking regime change with no valid reason.

Ok. I agree with all that. Except allowing Saddam to career around the Middle East wasn't an option. He was just the nastiest piece of work in a nasty, unstable place.
For me it was Blair's treatment of David Kelly that really ground my gears. Talk about being hung out to dry!

But was Iraq unstable? It may not have been top of most people's list of where to live but I seem to recall it was stable. It's a bit like the retreating British Empire syndrome ... countries were relatively stable while the Brits ruled but civil war would break out as soon at the last mooring rope was cast aside from the quay!

I agree re Kelly ... and followed by a big hush-up. We talk of people like Putin exercising tight control over events but Blair controlled anything at that time and the aftermaths re enquiries etc. that could have pulled him down.

Erm.... Iraq wasn't unstable. Saddam had it in a vice-like grip. He just overstepped what the US et al were willing to accept. Then he was deposed, then the suppresion he had exerted was released. Iraq is now trying to work through decades of zero democratic debate. A terrible mess. But this is what dictators produce.

[ForFolksSake]

firlandsfarm wrote: ↑
Sat Dec 07, 2024 9:04 pm
... seems to me Tony Blah committed a war crime by seeking regime change with no valid reason.

You could liken it to a form of 'rioting'

He was an instigator, a bit like Tommy Robinson

He definitely should have been locked up for it.

[Michael5482]

Ok. I agree with all that. Except allowing Saddam to career around the Middle East wasn't an option. He was just the nastiest piece of work in a nasty, unstable place.
For me it was Blair's treatment of David Kelly that really ground my gears. Talk about being hung out to dry!

But was Iraq unstable? It may not have been top of most people's list of where to live but I seem to recall it was stable. It's a bit like the retreating British Empire syndrome ... countries were relatively stable while the Brits ruled but civil war would break out as soon at the last mooring rope was cast aside from the quay!

I agree re Kelly ... and followed by a big hush-up. We talk of people like Putin exercising tight control over events but Blair controlled anything at that time and the aftermaths re enquiries etc. that could have pulled him down.

Erm.... Iraq wasn't unstable. Saddam had it in a vice-like grip. He just overstepped what the US et al were willing to accept. Then he was deposed, then the suppresion he had exerted was released. Iraq is now trying to work through decades of zero democratic debate. A terrible mess. But this is what dictators produce.

The lesson in all this is keep out of other country's that don't concern us, Trump hit the nail on the head yesterday saying Syria is nothing to do with the US and won't be getting involved.

We should follow suit but I have absolutely no doubt Starmer and his uneducated incompetent cabinet stick there beaks in they won't be able to help themselves it'll be like a moral crusade to them and try to portray Britain as back on the world stage tripe they pedal while British pensioners are still freezing, British farmers are still protesting and the boats keep coming.

[ForFolksSake]

But was Iraq unstable? It may not have been top of most people's list of where to live but I seem to recall it was stable. It's a bit like the retreating British Empire syndrome ... countries were relatively stable while the Brits ruled but civil war would break out as soon at the last mooring rope was cast aside from the quay!

I agree re Kelly ... and followed by a big hush-up. We talk of people like Putin exercising tight control over events but Blair controlled anything at that time and the aftermaths re enquiries etc. that could have pulled him down.

Erm.... Iraq wasn't unstable. Saddam had it in a vice-like grip. He just overstepped what the US et al were willing to accept. Then he was deposed, then the suppresion he had exerted was released. Iraq is now trying to work through decades of zero democratic debate. A terrible mess. But this is what dictators produce.

The lesson in all this is keep out of other country's that don't concern us, Trump hit the nail on the head yesterday saying Syria is nothing to do with the US and won't be getting involved.

We should follow suit but I have absolutely no doubt Starmer and his uneducated incompetent cabinet stick there beaks in they won't be able to help themselves it'll be like a moral crusade to them and try to portray Britain as back on the world stage tripe they pedal while British pensioners are still freezing, British farmers are still protesting and the boats keep coming.

It's called diversionary foreign policy to divert attention away from public domestic issues

[greenmark]

But was Iraq unstable? It may not have been top of most people's list of where to live but I seem to recall it was stable. It's a bit like the retreating British Empire syndrome ... countries were relatively stable while the Brits ruled but civil war would break out as soon at the last mooring rope was cast aside from the quay!

I agree re Kelly ... and followed by a big hush-up. We talk of people like Putin exercising tight control over events but Blair controlled anything at that time and the aftermaths re enquiries etc. that could have pulled him down.

Erm.... Iraq wasn't unstable. Saddam had it in a vice-like grip. He just overstepped what the US et al were willing to accept. Then he was deposed, then the suppresion he had exerted was released. Iraq is now trying to work through decades of zero democratic debate. A terrible mess. But this is what dictators produce.

The lesson in all this is keep out of other country's that don't concern us, Trump hit the nail on the head yesterday saying Syria is nothing to do with the US and won't be getting involved.

We should follow suit but I have absolutely no doubt Starmer and his uneducated incompetent cabinet stick there beaks in they won't be able to help themselves it'll be like a moral crusade to them and try to portray Britain as back on the world stage tripe they pedal while British pensioners are still freezing, British farmers are still protesting and the boats keep coming.

Trump won't have a choice if things go badly wrong in Ukraine. A dominant force in Europe is not what America wants. Russia dominated Europe would be double the US population and have plenty of tech of their own and stuff they''d acquired.
Syria has a chance now. Let's just hope the new regime goes for democracy rather than extreme medieval Islam. I'm not hopeful.