Any Hope Of Every Finding Peace?

[MilitantDogOwner]

Take Iraq. Yes we have invaded. Twice.

 

Twice?

 

Yeap twice. Gulf War 1 and 2.

[Albert Tatlock]

Take Iraq. Yes we have invaded. Twice.

 

Twice?

 

Yeap twice. Gulf War 1 and 2.

Nope - we didn't follow into Iraq after they were chased out of kuwait in GW1 - that was seen as George Bush senior's big mistake that led to the BS of the past 8 years.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Yes Albert, no British or American troops where in Iraq after we chased them out of Iraq. Not one. Not even and army cadet stepped foot into Iraq.

[Albert Tatlock]

Yes Albert, no British or American troops where in Iraq after we chased them out of Iraq. Not one. Not even and army cadet stepped foot into Iraq.

Incursions maybe, but it was not classed as an 'invasion'.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Yes Albert, no British or American troops where in Iraq after we chased them out of Iraq. Not one. Not even and army cadet stepped foot into Iraq.

Incursions maybe, but it was not classed as an 'invasion'.

 

Large scall military combat operations were conducting in Iraq during the first Gulf war. We invaded then withdrew. Thats the difference between 1 & 2.

[Albert Tatlock]

Yes Albert, no British or American troops where in Iraq after we chased them out of Iraq. Not one. Not even and army cadet stepped foot into Iraq.

Incursions maybe, but it was not classed as an 'invasion'.

 

Large scall military combat operations were conducting in Iraq during the first Gulf war. We invaded then withdrew. Thats the difference between 1 & 2.

Sorry, you're just proving that old adage: 'the one thing we learn from history, is that we learn nothing from history'.

 

"1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer."

 

"An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution."

 

In GW1 by definition that didn't happen, though Iraq 'invaded' Kuwait, we're kicked out and the borders restored, with no serious attempt to remove Sadam Hussein etc. Yes there were 'incursions' and rules applied against their forces/aircraft etc.

[Lonan3]

And while we're on the subject of Iraq - an article from The Guardian that's worth a read.

 

A few extracts:

 

Just prior to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the UN had teams of weapons inspectors operating inside Iraq, blanketing the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. They found no evidence of either retained WMD, or efforts undertaken by Iraq to reconstitute a WMD manufacturing capability. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

Precursor chemicals used in the lawful manufacture of chemical pesticides were present in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but these were unable to be used in manufacturing the sarin, tabun or VX chemical nerve agents the Bush administration claimed existed inside Iraq in stockpile quantities prior to the invasion.

 

The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991.

 

The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And while we're on the subject of Iraq - an article from The Guardian that's worth a read.

 

A few extracts:

 

Just prior to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the UN had teams of weapons inspectors operating inside Iraq, blanketing the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. They found no evidence of either retained WMD, or efforts undertaken by Iraq to reconstitute a WMD manufacturing capability. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

Precursor chemicals used in the lawful manufacture of chemical pesticides were present in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but these were unable to be used in manufacturing the sarin, tabun or VX chemical nerve agents the Bush administration claimed existed inside Iraq in stockpile quantities prior to the invasion.

 

The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991.

 

The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was.

 

I just find it unfortunate that it was only shoes that got fired at President Bush. The American government is just as bad as AL Qaeda.

[MilitantDogOwner]

And while we're on the subject of Iraq - an article from The Guardian that's worth a read.

 

A few extracts:

 

Just prior to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the UN had teams of weapons inspectors operating inside Iraq, blanketing the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. They found no evidence of either retained WMD, or efforts undertaken by Iraq to reconstitute a WMD manufacturing capability. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

 

Precursor chemicals used in the lawful manufacture of chemical pesticides were present in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but these were unable to be used in manufacturing the sarin, tabun or VX chemical nerve agents the Bush administration claimed existed inside Iraq in stockpile quantities prior to the invasion.

 

The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991.

 

The occupation of Iraq by the United States is far more brutal, bloody and destructive than anything Saddam ever did during his reign. When one examines the record of the US military in Iraq in terms of private homes brutally invaded, families torn apart and civilians falsely imprisoned (the prison population in Iraq during the US occupation dwarfs that of Saddam's regime), what is clear is that the only difference between the reign of terror inflicted on the Iraqi people today and under Saddam is that the US has been far less selective in applying terror than Saddam ever was.

 

I just find it unfortunate that it was only shoes that got fired at President Bush. The American government is just as bad as AL Qaeda.

 

 

Your the first person I would come to for advice on conflict resolution LDV. Shoot the President of the United States. Why dont the people of Iraq just write an open letter to him begging for him to nuke their arses back to the stone age. Lets face it, thats just what would happen if the guy had shot GB>

[John]

This thread just brings back memories of the Scottish guy on TV..... talking about knocking the guy out..lol

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Your the first person I would come to for advice on conflict resolution LDV. Shoot the President of the United States. Why dont the people of Iraq just write an open letter to him begging for him to nuke their arses back to the stone age. Lets face it, thats just what would happen if the guy had shot GB>

 

Thank you. I somehow doubt nuclear weapons would be suddenly dropped, it isn't really a practical and rational response. It isn't about conflict resolution either, but just a better way of exacting revenge I would have thought for the Iraqi person.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Your the first person I would come to for advice on conflict resolution LDV. Shoot the President of the United States. Why dont the people of Iraq just write an open letter to him begging for him to nuke their arses back to the stone age. Lets face it, thats just what would happen if the guy had shot GB>

 

Thank you. I somehow doubt nuclear weapons would be suddenly dropped, it isn't really a practical and rational response. It isn't about conflict resolution either, but just a better way of exacting revenge I would have thought for the Iraqi person.

 

I was being facetious. I dont think they would nuke Iraqi but it certainly would have esculated the situation to a hundred times worse than it already has. As if American need another excuse to deploy more troops.

 

The thread is called "ANY HOPE FOR EVERY FINDING PEACE"....and your on about shooting the leader of one of the biggest and most trigger happy nations in the world!!!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I was being facetious. I dont think they would nuke Iraqi but it certainly would have esculated the situation to a hundred times worse than it already has. As if American need another excuse to deploy more troops.

 

The thread is called "ANY HOPE FOR EVERY FINDING PEACE"....and your on about shooting the leader of one of the biggest and most trigger happy nations in the world!!!

 

Sorry, you are quite right, the idea just seemed more amusing than that of a shoe being thrown. I imagine it would have escalated the situation but now Saddam has gone it would be a little interesting to hypothesise how the US government would find a scapegoat.

 

Anyway, in terms of Al Qaeda and fanatical Muslims, I think there is hope but this problem is going to go on for quite a while. It is the West that needs to change however, it isn't going to come from the Muslims. The terrorism is a response of desperation in my opinion or an act of solidarity to those who are oppressed.