Political talk from outside of the UK
:sunglasses: 73.3 % :thumbsup: 6.7 % :grinning: 13.3 % 😟 6.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#539829
Andy McDandy wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:50 pm
In retrospect the problem with Iraq 1 was it didn't go far enough. There was a real possibility in 1991 about toppling Saddam Hussein and forming a modern democracy. Sadly what we got was 10 years of sanctions and occasional bombings that left a population pissed off equally with him and the West. In any case, Osama bin Laden had got his strop on the moment western forces started building up in Saudi Arabia in August 1990.
I was possibly a little trigger happy in my response to LJB on this matter.
I hope no feelings were irreversibly hurt.

My strong feelings on these matters (and I'll stand by all the campaigns I mentioned), revolve around one key deficit.
The politicians who are willing to commit our forces to action, display no vision, no concept of the endgame.

We did this because "Bad boys made us do it" simply won't wash.
Modern operations require that the politicians (and it won't generally be their sons and daughters) have a view for the end game.
What are the mission objectives?
Can we accomplish them without butchering half the civilians who live there?
And when the objectives are achieved, when can we pack up and go home?


Tony Blair was a smart operator, Theresa May, not so much.
But even Tony wasn't able to resolve the endgame questions.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#539831
Bones McCoy wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Littlejohn's brain wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:05 pm
Bones McCoy wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:45 pm
Going in without a plan has been THE plan for the last 20 years.
And what has it got us: Iraq (1 and 2), Afghanistan, Daesh, Libya...

And poor clueless Theresa's going to get swept along with it, just like Tony before her.
Everything she's touched has turned to shit and her last hope for "legacy" is a tighter partnership with the USA.
She's in no position to refuse when the Tweet goes up.
By Iraq 1, you mean the gulf war which went ahead with the UN's blessing and came about after Saddam had invaded and annexed another country? After he had been asked repeatedly to withdraw but refused? That war?
Yes that one.
How many civilians died?
How long did the occupation last?
How successful was the democracty that we installed?
How did Daesh end up driving so many Humvees in Iraqi army livery.
Where did Deash get the bulk of its regular trained soldiers?
We didn't invade Iraq in 1991.
Cyclist liked this
 
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
#539832
Littlejohn's brain wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:07 pm
Bones McCoy wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:46 pm
Littlejohn's brain wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:05 pm


By Iraq 1, you mean the gulf war which went ahead with the UN's blessing and came about after Saddam had invaded and annexed another country? After he had been asked repeatedly to withdraw but refused? That war?
Yes that one.
How many civilians died?
How long did the occupation last?
How successful was the democracty that we installed?
How did Daesh end up driving so many Humvees in Iraqi army livery.
Where did Deash get the bulk of its regular trained soldiers?
We didn't invade Iraq in 1991.
Really? I suppose the "Highway of Death" was entirely within Kuwaiti territory, and not one single coalition soldier crossed the border in pursuit of the retreating Iraqi army.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#539833
Cyclist wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:27 pm
Littlejohn's brain wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:07 pm
Bones McCoy wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:46 pm


Yes that one.
How many civilians died?
How long did the occupation last?
How successful was the democracty that we installed?
How did Daesh end up driving so many Humvees in Iraqi army livery.
Where did Deash get the bulk of its regular trained soldiers?
We didn't invade Iraq in 1991.
Really? I suppose the "Highway of Death" was entirely within Kuwaiti territory, and not one single coalition soldier crossed the border in pursuit of the retreating Iraqi army.
We didn't occupy Iraq in 1991.
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#539834
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Hardly the clean "Liberation of Kuwait" some would have us believe.

And in many ways the tar-baby that forced our continued presence and involvement in the region.
Hence my listing it as the first of a sequence of unfortunate interventions.
 
By Cyclist
Membership Days Posts
#539844
Littlejohn's brain wrote:
We didn't invade Iraq in 1991.
We didn't occupy Iraq in 1991.
Correct, so why didn't you say that the first time? I could have got to bed 5 minutes earlier. :lol:
Attachments
duty_calls.png
duty_calls.png (13.77 KiB) Viewed 2324 times
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#539897
May's policy is to bomb or not bomb depending on what mood Trump is in. Even Corbyn can make hay out of this one. As Assad is winning this war inditing him and his government for war crimes should be the next move and squeezing the country with sanctions until they're handed over.
 
By Arrowhead
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#539898
Against.

I know I probably shouldn't use this crisis to take a swipe at the Tories, but I wouldn't trust this lot if they told me the earth is round. They don't have a plan for Brexit, so why should we believe they have one for Syria?
youngian, Cyclist liked this
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#539903
In terms of having a plan, I agree we don't have one. But this latest potential airstrike isn't an attempt to overthrow Assad or get Putin to back down. I'm not sure a plan or endgame is required with this one. It's just a simple message; 'Act like a complete cunt and we'll bomb the fuck out of you.' Whether he takes heed or not is up to him but if he decides to act like a complete cunt again we'll bomb the fuck out of him again. That's pretty much where we are with Assad and Putin at the moment.
lord_kobel liked this
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#539916
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:45 pm
In terms of having a plan, I agree we don't have one. But this latest potential airstrike isn't an attempt to overthrow Assad or get Putin to back down. I'm not sure a plan or endgame is required with this one. It's just a simple message; 'Act like a complete cunt and we'll bomb the fuck out of you.' Whether he takes heed or not is up to him but if he decides to act like a complete cunt again we'll bomb the fuck out of him again. That's pretty much where we are with Assad and Putin at the moment.
The thing is, we're not going to bomb the fuck out of him, or send and SAS sniper troop to plug him between his too-close-together eyes.

The confrontation appears to have settled down to a couple of big boys pushing each other over who gets best seat on the school bus.
Meanwhile Assad, May and Macron play the Richard "Hamster" Hammond role.

I don't know how it will resolve itself, but the risk of unplanned escalation seems in decline.
Assads boys will temporarily re-deploy behind the Ivans. A bunch of red-white-and blue boats will cruise the med.

It may all blow over followed by a "That fucken showdem!!" Tweet.
Or a big sounding sheaf of missiles might get lobbed at an expendable patch of desert, followed by a "That fucken showdem!!" Tweet.
After any dust settles and weapon strike videos are played on the news, the Russian ambassador will tell us how every hostile missile was intercepted.
youngian, AOB, Zuriblue and 1 others liked this
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 18

Short delay only being requested, apparently. So,[…]

The Independent Group

I hope these goons have not done too much dama[…]

The Sun

They want No Deal but wouldn't want the backlash f[…]

Paul Thomas Redux

PAUL THOMAS on... Speaker Bercow, the spanner in […]