Talking Iraq
The topic today? Let's talk Iraq.
Let's talk the issue which previously dominated politics in Scotland, throughout these islands and elsewhere. Let's talk the confirmed end of UK military involvement.
Gordon Brown has announced that the UK's mission there will end by 31 May - with the troops coming home within two months from that date.
All of which makes Mr Brown the prime minister who will end the Iraqi episode - while prompting a succession of further questions, not least opposition demands that the delayed inquiry into the causes of the conflict should now begin.
At the very least, these opposition leaders and others will presumably point out that the mission which will now end on that prescribed date differs somewhat from the original search for weapons of mass destruction.
'Noble cause'
Take a glance elsewhere on the BBC website. There is a grimly efficient interactive graphic which charts by place of birth the British troop fatalities in Iraq.
For Scotland, the figure is 19 dead; that is listed as 11% of the total.
Of course, Scotland is not alone. The south-west of England has contributed 12% of the war dead, the south-east 11%.
A closing note. I recall the former Defence Secretary Des Browne referring in speeches to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan as the "noble cause" of this era.
I do not recall him attaching that label to Iraq.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Let's not forget it was one Gordon Brown who paid for the war to start using our money.
Gordon Brown was therefore one of the main approvers of the start of the war, so let's not be having another "saving the world" episode when the soldiers are brought home.
Complain about this comment
this whole subject is based on untruths ,
so i for one will not be holding my breath.
can anyone enlighten me as to when the last statement from Mr Brown or the labour party was actually 100% truthful .
for instance did the press release actually have 2009 in it anywhere?
good point Hugh we have already seen Mr brown taking credit for saving the world from the credit crunch whilst convenietly forgetting who it was that caused it!
no doubt they will try to pull the same stunt again.
Complain about this comment
"...with the troops coming home..."
Erm - not quite. I point you to Helmand Province.
Complain about this comment
RETREAT TO VICTORY!
So the shabby and bloody military adventure for the Brit Army in Iraq is to end.
So what lessons have been learnt?
Since the UK troops are RETREATING to Afghanistan we have to conclude that NO lessons have been learnt.
The military maxim that you DON'T reinforce failure is clearly NOT understood by a Labour party that now has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and hundreds of soldiers on their hands.
Not even Robert Mugabe has spilled this much blood, and he is rightly called a mass murderer.
Complain about this comment
brought home from Iraq , so they can be sent back on th enext plan to Afghanistan.......aye its all about the spin!
Complain about this comment
4. Minuend, I was under the impression it was Islamic militia groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan who were responsible for the hundreds of car bombs/suicide bombs that killed thousands of innocent civilians and hundreds of soldiers! I didn't know it was British forces doing it!
Were our forces responsible for the World Trade Centre, Pentagon, London, Glasgow and Madrid massacres, killing thousands of other innocent civilians, too?!
Complain about this comment
It's not before time they were brought home, they are forced to skulk in barracks as though they had been beaten by the insurgency. It was the rules of engagement given them by this government that beat them, not the insurgents. The same procedure is about to be repeated in Afghanistan where brave troops are supposed to fight a war without damaging the enemy because of the stupid politically correct attitude of the government. Bring them home also and let's have a proper public inquiry into the reasons for British troops going to Iraq in the first place. This time hopefully the inquiry will be allowed to operate freely and get to the truth which was so carefully hidden in all the previous attempts at finding answers. No doubt the Downing St shredders will be called into action long before any inquiry gets underway anyway; but Blair , Brown and their associates must be called to account.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Yes, Expat. Your are wrong, several theories you mentioned were the cause of the British Military being in Iraq or Afganistan.
You are forgetting that a radical muslim can justify giving his/her life away against a foreign presence.
The British Military may not have been directly involved in the above terror plots, but you could bet that for the plots based in the UK, Yes our troops involvement in Iraq and Afganistan were used to justify their actions.
Complain about this comment
RE@6 -were our forces responsible - no they were not !
was our government ?- well we will never agree ,will we RE.
we all know how pernikity you can be when it comes to facts . so could you tell me how many innocent civilians died at the Glasgow attack?
granted we were very, very lucky but the answer is :
NONE.
Complain about this comment
#4, #6 two wrongs do not make a right, neither side has the right to kill innocent civilians and expect to claim the morale high ground.
Complain about this comment
Epidemiological studies of deaths during the US led occupation of Iraq have shown that 1 in 40 Iraqis have met a violent end, that is 750,000.
Lets not forget that over 1.3 million Iraqis died as a consequence of the UN embargo imposed in 1990.
Over 2 million dead!
When Stalin said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic", who would have thought that years later people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would gladly sign up to a similar bloody compact with insanity.
Complain about this comment
8. Master Porter, so you believe that the ongoing bombings of street markets etc. is all about the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi/Afghani soil and nothing else?
Complain about this comment
Labour nor their supporters should ever be forgiven for this unspeakable act of barbarity.
At the time it was evident to all but a fool that oil was the reason and that Bliar and Bown followed Bush like lap dogs.
Malcolm Rifind summed it up nicely when he said Labour was undrgoing mass denial.
Next time Bungler visits Scotland, oh how good it would be to see a Scottish press hack throw his shoes at Bungler!
You up for this Brian?
A McG
Complain about this comment
And so the odds on an election next summer shorten dramatically, I should think...
Complain about this comment
Brian
How many times have Labour announced that the troops were coming home from Iraq?
Complain about this comment
Let's all post our smelliest old shoe to Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#12.
"8. Master Porter, so you believe that the ongoing bombings of street markets etc. is all about the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi/Afghani soil and nothing else?"
No. I do not have the ability to read the minds of the militants, but I suspect many will also be aiming to harm the other religous groups in Iraq or Afganistan, including other muslim groups. However we also have to acknowledge that by putting our military on their soil that many in Iraq and Afganistan will feel that we are a problem rather then a solution. You also can not ignore the amount of propaganda that militant groups have managed to create by the amount of innocents harmed over the years.
Complain about this comment
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
1. Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks
A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.
2. Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together
Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defense Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.
Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.
3. Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program
The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".
4. Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes to develop nuclear weapons
The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.
5. Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War
Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.
6. Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus
Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.
7. Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox
This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.
8. US and British claims were supported by the inspectors
According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 liters of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons program" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."
9. Previous weapons inspections had failed
Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programs has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons program" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons program more than a month before the defection.
10. Iraq was obstructing the inspectors
Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming."
11. Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes
This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.
12. The "dodgy dossier"
Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organizations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.
13. War would be easy
Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing Saddam Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against," one general complained.
14. Umm Qasr
The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's Defense staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.
15. Basra rebellion
Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.
16. The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch
Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.
17. Troops would face chemical and biological weapons
As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorized to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.
"It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."
18. Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD
"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.
19. Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis
Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".
Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.
Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
20. WMD were found
After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.
Labour, (short) change is what we do.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
And the extreme ignorance of the Scottish nationalists is shown to the world once more.
Unbelievable.
This lot are seriously trying to blame US/UK forces for these deaths and NOT the Islamic extremists who plant the IEDS and send teenagers in as suicide bombers.
Where is the nationalist condemnation of these people?
Nowhere, there is none. This is solely taken as an opportunity to attack the UK Government as it might just possibly build support for independence.
Complain about this comment
17. Porter: "but I suspect many will also be aiming to harm the other religous groups in Iraq or Afganistan, including other muslim groups. "
You only "suspect" that?
Once again, I have to suggest you read up on the subject before you comment.
Complain about this comment
Nope, can't let this one go.
Porter, what do you think are the principal conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Who is fighting against whom, and why?
No urgent references to Wikipedia or other brief guides to these two conflicts.....answer now.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Its worth reflecting on what Gordon Brown said about the illegal invasion of Iraq way back when:
"I'll find the money - whatever it costs!"
And then to compare that with what Barack Obama said back in 2002.
Gordon Brown COULD have prevented this "Dumb War" as Obama terms it. He didn't - he declared that he would find "whatever it cost" to fight the war. A stupid man - too scared to stand up for what was clearly right.
If only he'd aligned himself with Robin Cook. By now the Iraqis themselves might have overthrown Saddam. The world would be safer. Bin Laden might have been caught. There would have been no Tube and bus bombings. No-one would know who John Smeaton was. Mumbai wouldn't have happened. Billions could have been spent on developing the world's poorest countries.
The list is endless.
The Iraq War was not in "our name" - it was by - and for - Gordon Brown, New Labour and all their ilk.
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."? Then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
Slainte Mhor Barack - we all hope that you live up to your principles. Its a real pity that Gordon Brown couldn't live up to his.
Complain about this comment
11. Minuend: "Epidemiological studies of deaths during the US led occupation of Iraq have shown that 1 in 40 Iraqis have met a violent end, that is 750,000."
Read this summary of Iraq War statistics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/iraq-casualties-iraq-cos_n_92303.html
Note the following stat:
82,000-89,000: Estimate of Iraqi civilians casualties from violence since the beginning of the Iraq War.
Then have a look on this website: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
And especially go to this section: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/
...and see who killed whom (Porter, this applies to you too).
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#19.
Is this comment directed at what I wrote?
To be honest I am a critical person when it comes to the British involvement in Iraq and Afganistan. I am not against the Iraq or Afganistan war at all, only the London Governments reasons for it.
You talk about the ignorance of Scottish nationalist, but why are you not accepting that American and British forces being present in Iraq and Afganistan could be counter-productive?
Is there not a slight possibility that our troops may be seen as the invaders rather then there to help, which could ineffect persuade others to support the militant groups?
Like I said before, I do support the wars, but I am open minded about the war and not blind, I am not going to argue and claim the wars as complete successes when there are huge problems to consider and take into account.
Complain about this comment
#19 I think you will find that in reality the vast majority of people be they supporters of independence or not support the work of the UK forces where ever they be as I myself do. As for supporting the political party who sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan that is a different matter entirely, do try not to twist the reality to suit your own warped view of the those who support scottish independence.
Complain about this comment
It may be worth noting that the collapse of Anglo-American cowboy capitalism is ironically solving the previously troublesome manpower problem caused by the horrors of Anglo-American warfare in the Muslim world.
Recently issued figures show that, as the Anglo-American financial crisis took hold this year, the numbers of people signing up for active service in the army, navy and the air force rocketed.
Senior army figures, according to a report in The Scotsman on November 30th, claim that the year-on-year 14 per cent increase in UK army recruitment is the direct result of the recession, as hundreds of young men and women choose a guaranteed income in the services rather than taking their chances on the high street.
The military recruitment statistics, released by the Ministry of Defence, which are also showing a much improved retention rate, show that the UK's training barracks will have an extra 2,190 recruits in 2008-9, compared with the previous 12 months. Across all the armed services, the UK is now running at 96.8 per cent of its full-time trained-strength requirement.
The rise in Scotland, where recruitment to the Royal Regiment of Scotland is expected to be up by 5 per cent, is less marked. Nevertheless, the Regiment is now running close to its 2,935 capacity, at 2,506 soldiers strong.
Desperate times, indeed, when the not inconsiderable risk of stepping on a land mine in Afghanistan seems preferable to the probability of failing to find employment in the UK, where the unemployment rate, according to figures released today, is also rocketing. The number of people out of work in Blighty rose by 137,000 to 1.86 million in the three months to October, the highest level since 1997. This took the unemployment rate up to 6 per cent from 5.8 per cent previously, according to the Office for National Statistics. The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in November rose by 75,700 to 1.07 million, the largest rise since March 1991.
According to the BBC, the number of people out of work in Scotland has risen by more than 20,000 in a year. The figures also show that the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance there is fast approaching the 100,000 mark. That will be more cannon fodder, then. This must be what is known as the Union dividend. England can always offer you a job, even if it is only one that you would not touch with a barge pole if you were not so desperate.
Why is England for ever fighting foreign wars? For one thing, it clearly takes the unemployed off the streets and gives them something to do instead of fomenting discontent against the government back home. Look out, Afghanistan. Here comes Tommy Atkins, with his loyal pal Jock to carry the ammunition for him.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant Expat, you really ought to think before posting.
For some reason you seem to think that it is only Scottish Nationalists who think Labour has a case to answer in terms of culpability for the Iraq debacle.
How bizarre. Anyone with a grain of brain can see that Labour funded it. They plied us with propaganda (remember 45 mins?). They removed caveats in the intelligence. They scaremongered. And it is clear that they ignored international law by going in without a second, explicit, UN Resolution.
It is also clear that Gordon Brown, who remained as part of the Cabinet with a convention of collective responsibility, supported all this (and indeed paid for it).
If understanding these clear facts makes me a Scottish Nationalist, so be it. Rather odd logic though.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#20.
Yes, I only suspect. There happens to be another reason for the attacks on religous groups, it happens by the same members of a religous group to give the impression that they are under attack.
"Who is fighting against whom, and why?"
It's not an easy answer. But I believe that there are many groups in Iraq and Afganistan who are fighting one another for control. Americans, British, NATO, Afgani + Pakistani Taleban, Al-Qaeda, Pro-Democracy groups, Anti-Western groups... some are be grouped together, but just because you are apart of the same group does not mean you hold the same ideas or opinions.
Complain about this comment
I have to admit to being perplexed and amazed that Reluctant-Expat has used a thread on the Iraq situation in order to attack Scottish nationalists.
He appears genuinely ignorant of the fact that Blair and Campbell (amongst others) were duplicitous in their campaign to get us to war, it wasn't the SNP who lied.
He also appears not to realise that opposition to this illegal venture has support amongst Unionists as well. Indeed, calls for a public inquiry have been made by many politicians of different hues.
It doesn't matter what the issue is, Reluctant-Expat will exclusively attack the SNP or nationalists no matter what.
It was of course pure bad luck for Expat that he posted his typical rants immediately after such a well constructed and informative comment from Wansanshoo - the contrast was stark and not at all flattering for Expat.
Complain about this comment
This whole Iraq business shows that too many people in the UK still think Britain is a world power.
Tony Blair wasted most of his political goodwill on the Iraq war and gained us nothing. Indeed a horrible precedent was set for charging into other countries. Who are we to lecture China about Tibet or Russia about Georgia. ?
Come to think of it the UK can't even pay its own Credit Card bills!
Complain about this comment
Basically reluctant (unfortunately not a reluctant poster) expat is a kingsize ***hole who will defend his little labour buddies, who have brought this country to the gates of total ruin, to the hilt no matter what they do. He/She would do well in Mugabe's Zimbabwe!
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat ends a comment listing estimated body counts with a statement:
"...and see who killed whom"
What is he arguing here, that everything is OK because the anarchy created by the invasion has allowed psycopaths and fundamentalists to target innocent Iraqi's?
If you hold open a door to let the savages in them you are also responsible for the resultant carnage.
It doesn't matter who killed whom, what matters is that the environment for destroying a society and it's people was created through mainly US and to a lesser degree UK ignorance and hubris.
I repeat, the SNP had nothing to do with this, nothing.
Complain about this comment
It really was very foolish of the USA and UK to start the conflict that they did. However, the mission has changed. Why on earth would we choose to get out now, when there is useful work to be done to foster long-term security for Iraqis?
I detect an autumn election.
Complain about this comment
#26 frankly_francophone
"Why is England for ever fighting foreign wars?"
Seems unfair to blame the English. Imperial adventures and "sucking up to the big boys" is very much a British thing.
i can't see an independent England being any more willing to indulge in foreign adventures to change other state's regimes than an independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
24. I don't think anyone thinks that the presence of our forces doesn't have some negative effect. However, the primary conflict is between Islamic groups as those daily reports will demonstrate.
Meanwhile, my frustration is with the various 'statistics' being thrown around with ignorant abandon.
First, Afghanistan is a just war in my mind and the ultimatums during the build-up were fair, all be they ignored. If we can use our time there to destroy the heroin crops, the world will be a far better place for it. As the Russians found out (and as we know in the past) Afghanistan is a tough terrain to control. Surveillance technology is on our side and is this is increasingly deployed, less boots on the ground will be needed to hold territory and rapid deployment forces based in secure areas will become an option.
Iraq, on the other hand, should have involved more time for the UN inspectors. Saddam had chemical weapons, there is no doubt. There is plenty of documentary proof of chemical pre-agents and relevant equipment being shipped there in the 80s and 90s. He used them in Kurdistan, killing and maiming more than 15,000 people (something conveniently forgotten by a certain element). The Iraqi Army had several chemical weapons delivery units which could deploy these weapons by air, artillery, tank or air-dropped mines. Documents captured from Iraqi units during both Iraq Wars explained the rules and procedures of chemical warfare, including on where and when to use them and the tactics to be used after launch. The 'super-gun' that was being built by Saddam in the 90s was capable of firing chemical shells into Israel and this is believed to be its primary purpose, while a defector said it was also nuclear-capable (it was capable of firing a 600kg High Explosive shell, but over 1,000km with very poor accuracy, this would have accomplished little). Iraq had chemical weapons.
Where are they then? In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, were these sent to Iran (as much weaponry was in the '92 War), were they destroyed or were they hidden in the vast desert that makes up much of the country? Who knows but to anyone with the skill, experience and knowledge of what really went on there, Iraq had chemical weapons.
Complain about this comment
I note BBC UK are now peddling the line that the reasons for the Iraq war were
1. regime change
2. destruction of WMDs
Funny, I distinctly remember Blair saying that regime change was NOT an objective.
The BBC seen to be rewriting History!
Complain about this comment
And I still see no condemnation from this board's resident nationalists of the Islamic groups who kill on a daily basis.
All I see is a tirade of abuse towards the UK government.
And now me.
Complain about this comment
#33 Skip_NC
"Why on earth would we choose to get out now, when there is useful work to be done to foster long-term security for Iraqis?"
The US wanted an open ended arrangement to stay as long as they wanted, they were forced to accept a fixed date.
The Iraquis want the foreigners out. It's their country. They decide.
Complain about this comment
btw RE is just winding you up. If the SNP was in favour of foreign wars, he'd be posting your arguments (but in nastier form).
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Finally, since it appears you have accepted that American and British forces on the ground have the potential to be counter productive, I will be the first to condemn the Islamic groups who constantly murder the innocent.
However, please do not divert the debate. The war in Iraq and Afganistan were never about protecting the different Islamic groups from one another.
You might even argue that the wars gave the opportunity for different groups to take advantage of the unstability to commit these horrible crimes.
However, I believe the situation between these Islamic groups will eventually heal once our soldiers leave. It's rather similar to our own religous troubles between the different Christain faiths.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat is now insisting that there is a tirade of abuse aimed at him.
I suspect however that Reluctant-Expat is employing yet another well known tactic used by a notorious Unionist poster from a well known Johnston press newspaper, the tactic of goading people into posting actual abuse by falsely claiming to be victimised.
Why do they always do that?
Reluctant-Expat has used this thread in order to attack those who support Scottish independence. He has deliberately ignored the fact that many of the claims made here originated outwith Scotland.
Reluctant-Expat supports the invasion and doesn't accept the UK is partly responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths. He is free to do so, however for once I wish he could simply comment on a subject without resorting to attacks on independence supporters for no other reason that they are.
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat.
Your views are in line with the UK government, the vast majority of posters on this particular blog disagree with that view and make no apology their position.
I condemn violence from insurgents as much as I condemn the orchestrated violence from politicians.
George Bush Snr and a truly international
coalition had the opportunity to resolve this matter many years ago when Iraq was the aggressor, the opportunity was missed, the consequences of that missed opportunity are plain for all to see.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
If Islamic groups kill on a daily basis ( a very dubious assertion ) what has this got to do with the US and the UK twice invading secular Iraq (which gave no cover whatsoever to Islamic groups) and killing an estimated 200,000 Iraqis the first time and over 700,000 in this current nonsense.
Ignore RE. He is not addressing the point at all.
His posts are offensively stupid.
Complain about this comment
41. If you're talking about NI, the Army moved out long after the bombings/killings had stopped. Your chronology is mixed up.
And it is already widely accepted that "that the war gave the opportunity for different groups to take advantage of the unstability to commit these horrible crimes." That is not suspicion or theory...it's accepted fact. Not even debated anywhere. Saddam contained (quite ruthlessly and violently) all Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq just as he contained political opposition in Kurdistan.
42. So you would have been okay if we ignored the UN mandate for the Kuwait War and continued on into Iraq instead of stopping at the border?
And how would that have turned out differently?
43. Sneckedagain: "If Islamic groups kill on a daily basis ( a very dubious assertion )..."
Clicking on the link too difficult for you? Let me help you:
Tuesday 16 December: 8 dead
Baghdad: roadside bomb kills 2 civilians.
Diyala Sadiya: bomb kills 2.
Khanaqin: gunmen kill 1.
Sulaimaniya: Iranian forces kill 1.
Ninewa Mosul: bomb blows up car, kills 2 men.
Monday 15 December: 21 dead
Baghdad: suicide bomber kills Sahwa leader; car bomb kills 9 policemen.
Ninewa Sinjar: gunmen kill 7 Yazidi family members.
Mosul: bomb kills 2 men in car; gunmen kill woman in her home.
Diyala Sadiya: gunmen kill Sahwa member.
Sunday 14 December: 1 dead
Ninewa Mosul: US forces kill civilian during raid in his house.
Saturday 13 December: 13 dead
Baghdad: gunmen kill official at Ministry of Interior.
Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill policeman, woman and Mayor in separate attacks; at least 2 beheaded bodies found.
Salahuddin Balad: gunmen kill 2.
Baiji: 5 (1 child, 4 policemen) are killed.
Thursday 11 December: 56 dead
Tameem Kirkuk: suicide bomber kills 55 in restaurant (up to 6 children reported dead).
Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill 17-year-old.
Wednesday 10 December: 2 dead
Baghdad: 1 body found.
Diyala Jalawla: roadside bomb kills 1.
Tuesday 9 December: 1 dead
Ninewa Mosul: 1 policeman killed.
Complain about this comment
#38 Oldnat,
Agreed. However, The date fixed for withdrawal is the end of 2011. Why, then, should the UK get out now when there is work to be done and the Iraqi government approves their presence in the meantime? Remember, the UK is being replaced by the USA in Basra. It makes no sense to me, other than for political purposes.
If GB can make a coherent case for withdrawal by next summer, I might be inclined to believe the next thing that comes out of his mouth. Until then, I will believe that he is manipulating the situation for political purposes, just as his predecessor did. That, of course, would be beyond shameful.
In the interests of full disclosure, since this ill-judged war started I have seen a brother, two nieces and a nephew honourably discharge their duties in either Iraq or Afghanistan. If we cannot see the task through to its conclusion, what has been the point of subjecting our military to so much mental anguish these past six years (almost)?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#44.
I was not talking about Northern Ireland in particular.
Interesting, you actually agree that the wars in Iraq and Afganistan practically allowed these Islamic groups to commit murder.
Is that what will be accomplished by our actions? Is that what we will remember the dead for?
Another example of the mess of British foreign policy. Only an idiot would not have speculated that something like this may happen and its a pity something more effective was not created to protect the innocent.
Complain about this comment
Our forces should never have been in Iraq. Many of us were misled into thinking that we must invade to get rid of weapons of mass destructions. Some politicians did not believe the UN report that they were sure Saddam did not have these weapons. But George Bush would not listen and went ahead assisted by Tony Blair who persuaded parliament to agree to invade. Our presentg PM Gordon Brown made the money available. Now he says our troops will leave by next year.. So far I have not heard of any of ourpoliticians dying in Iraq, wonder why. They start the mess and expect our armed forces to clean it up for them. Of course our troops are doing a great job, but they should not be there in the first place
Complain about this comment
Blair planned Iraq war from start
?If the political context were right,? said Blair, ?people would support regime change.? Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason."
Blair and his cabinet of the time as well as Bush, Cheney and his neocon friends are all war crimminals and should be in the dock in the Haigue.
Complain about this comment
#45 Skip_NC
"If we cannot see the task through to its conclusion, what has been the point of subjecting our military to so much mental anguish these past six years (almost)?"
There is no conclusion. Sad though it is for the armed forces of all countries involved to have lost lives, suffered injuries etc, the war never had a point other than the neo-con fantasy of the "American Century".
The politicians lied. The soldiers and civilians suffered. Nothing new in that, but it was still unforgivable for Bush and Blair to mount their illegal war.
Next we have to get out of the unwinable Afghan war. It's not our job to force democracy onto other states. Short, sharp intervention to deal with a threat to ourselves is one thing. Creating another Vietnam is simply stupidity by politicians who got into a war that they can't see a way out of.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
We seem to be agreed on the genesis of this war. My fear is that, if we come out too soon, we may have to go in later on wearing blue berets. If that happens, the situation is likely to be much worse than it is now.
Of course, we could always send the protagonists in at the head of the line. Can you imagine Dubya flying a plane in a war zone? Or the simpering TB picking up a rifle and donning inadequate body armour to patrol the streets? I would pay good money to watch a live video of that, especially if the proceeds went to Erskine Hospital!
Complain about this comment
#50 Skip_NC
Excellent idea! Reminiscent of the old Scottish clan system of settling disputes via single combat - only with shoes as weapons!
Complain about this comment
Skip,
could we not also send the odious reluctant expat as most would pay good money to see him/her take their chance!
Complain about this comment
My little opinion for what it's worth: Brown is executing a carefully planned, shameful public relations stunt to prepare the way for the next general election. He couldn't have one with troops still in Iraq I'm guessing.
#33 Skip_NC wrote:
"It really was very foolish of the USA and UK to start the conflict that they did."
Yes, the state-centric system of international relations at it's worst? Unsurprised Realists can add more chapters to their books. My point: you can't just say 'Oopsie'.
#30. uk_abz_scot wrote:
"This whole Iraq business shows that too many people in the UK still think Britain is a world power."
It is embarrassing isn't it? Like Churchill behaving as though he still had a seat at the top table after WWII. Britain get over it pet, you have to move on.
On embarrassing, the Royal Variety thing has just 'performed' a loverly rendition of God Save the Queen - barf-a-rama! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Brown - quoted in the Herald
Mr Brown said: "It is important to remember we have been engaged in the most difficult and challenging of work.
"The tasks of overthrowing a dictatorship, the task of building a democracy for the future and defending it against terrorism.
"We have made a huge contribution and of course given people an economic stake in the future of Iraq. We leave Iraq a better place."
What a cynical, lying, distortion of reality.
Those of you who are around my age will remember Nixon, and may appreciate this comparison of Brown and Nixon by a Lib-Dem journalist.
Complain about this comment
Iraq and its subsequent aftermath was one of the finals straws for me as far as being a Unionist of any description was concerned. To my shame I allowed myself to believe that WMD and other arguments were compelling and that we had to go in. I'll never make that mistake again.
Until there is a huge foreign Armed force off the coast of Scotland threatening Scots with dictatorship or worse not one single person from Scotland (I would include England too but that's up to them) should be engaged in any conflict whatsoever unless under strict UN jurisdiction. Our days as Imperial lackey are well and truly at an end and not before time too.
It's interesting that Brian very quickly lists the % of dead from other areas of the UK so as presumably to mitigate the idea that our sacrifice is disproportionate. However, I see proportionate to her population Scotland has contributed more than other areas in terms of the war dead. I wonder if this is the Union dividend yet again rearing its head yet again.
I wonder if British Nationalist Unionsts would wish to berate these brave dead souls as subsidy junkies or scream about Barnett differentials to them and their families. Scotland should never have paid "the blood price" for US Foreign Secretary Blair and Brown's oil war. And please, if this post makes it past the Mods spare me your crocodile outrage. Spare us from that at least.
No Scottish or UK soldier should have died. None should have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's time to stop making successive generations pay for their elders' foreign policy mistakes. Especially those young Scots escaping the mean streets of Nulab's Britain and all it's Thatcherite 'provisions' such as well paid jobs and high standard of living.
Troops out now.
Complain about this comment
#52. oldnat (Waiting game)
Sorry others this will bore - please ignore.
Just so you know, I'm not dismissing your earlier suggestion etc. - I've had to actually learn not to launch headlong into 'a project', to the detriment of food, sleep, or anything else too boring! I know if you play with fire, you get burned. Don't think I snubbed your enthusiasm. Having reflected, I am going to trail through the SNP's website to research just what's going on with it and see what routes there are to take. In my world, I'd get a team together of: IT 'guys' who've perhaps worked on sites for companies, young analysts who have experience of tailoring magazine content (for example) to a specific audience, and people who are really keen on networking sites, e-mail, instant messaging, texting etc. etc. and who know how to manipulate the software to carry out the tasks they like. You'd need someone controlling the vision to coordinate all that - has final say over content. Behind the scenes I'd have a researcher or two gather all the data about the Obama campaign - would have to be well 'genned up' to pull this off, hence need a team. Though aiming to present a bold campaign, I'd actually proceed very cautiously step by step, as I reckon this type of thing could go wrong more easily than go right. I'd say it's wiser to know your limits. Apart from that I wouldn't know where to start! Plus perhaps the young crowd is already way ahead of me! I'm going to have a look on Facebook etc. - I'm signed up. I also have webspace through my e-mail I don't use - I wonder how many hits I would get if I uploaded some of the stuff re independence I would like to see, on there? That's what I'll do, research.
(I was only kidding about the near divorce in my #32!)
Reply not demanded. ;-)
I'm only posting this by way of, er, explanation(?) Can leave it now! :~)
Complain about this comment
#51 the flying sandal sums up Bush's presidency better than words ever could, if only Bush hadn't moved his head at the last moment.......laugh I almost wet myself.
Complain about this comment
#52 sorry Draboy but I beleive that the person you refer too is booked to play Panto as the arse end of a cow, a role he is well suited for.
Complain about this comment
Iraq should never have been invaded. My opinion is that Bush Jnr was trying to make up for Bush Snr's error in not getting Saddam in 91. The USA had world agreement then.
I don't see any solution that will prevent further deaths in Iraq. I study military history as a hobby and the Middle East is a nightmare to deal with, on the same level as Afghanistan.
Capturing territory is easy - maintaining peace thereafter is very difficult.
Re WMDs - Saddam DID possess them, but very likely not immediately prior to the invasion.
What is most annoying is that the two main instigators of the invasion will be out of office by the time Iraq settles down.
It is ironic that when the Falkland Islands - UK territory populated by people who wished to remain part of the UK - was invaded, it was Labour who did not want military action. (And before the conspiracy theorists dive in, the Argentinian Junta were trying to deflect attention from their own domestic issues). Then Labour decide to invade a country that did not really pose a real threat. The prime target for Iraq would have been Israel, and heaven help anyone using WMD against Israel, since the response would be nuclear.
I can accept the reasons for invading Afghanistan but not for Iraq.
Complain about this comment
#54. oldnat
Very interesting as usual oldnat.
I for one have always been in favour of keeping Gordon in power for now, as he then has more time to grow a 'getting it wrong' collection.
The darker he appears the better, as there's all the more criticism to direct at him. If he is so disturbed, he could well land the final blow on himself though!
;-)
Complain about this comment
Yes RE but the killing is tribal and religious power struggles not Islamists per se, but perhaps you don't recognise the difference. This is a very direct result of the lawless chaos we plunged Iraq into.
But what about the three quarter a million dead Iraqis killed directly as a result of the UK and US invasions. The fact of the matter is that the wicked Saddam Hussain ran a secular state. Any form of religious intolerance was dealt with swiftly and brutally. So there was none of it.
I had Christian friends from Basra. They did not like Saddam at all but they conceded their religious freedom was guaranteed by him. There were a million Christians in the Basra area ten years ago. Now there is none. They are all in Syria or Jordan. Their houses are ransacked. Their churches are burned to the ground. And we're marching out. Great.
Complain about this comment
#56 aye_write
As I said previously - Go for it girl!
My generation got everything that was going (and quite pleased that we still have a higher % of SNP voters), but it needs your generation to redesign the national movement for you and your successors.
Complain about this comment
Got everything going? Your generation got turned over. Just like every other Scottish generation since union.
Complain about this comment
# 19
I support independence.
Your bitterness towards someone like me is palpable.
Yes I blame the US and UK governments for the invasion of Iraq. It was not justified as the reason was based on lies. Why did no other countries support the invasion for any length of time? Aye, they found out it was all a con by the US and UK so withdrew their troops.
The reason Gordon Brown now wants to take our troops out of Iraq is to immediately use them in Afghanistan, then he can show Mr Obama what a wonderful person he is supporting US policy.
Afghanistan is a death trap for our troops who are so poorly equipped for that type of war. I know that, many others know that but the UK government insists it's untrue. Gordon Brown was told a few home truths during his visit last week. I'm sure he won't make them public.
Complain about this comment
Why are we waiting?
9 Mar 2004 :
Opposition Day
Iraq (Attorney-General's Advice)
1.37 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I beg to move,
That this House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full.
I am pleased to be speaking to the motion, which stands in my name and in those of my hon. Friends. It is co-sponsored by Plaid Cymru?the party of Wales?and the Scottish National party.
The wording of the motion is tightly drawn, but for further clarity I should say that this debate is not about whether one was for or against the conflict in Iraq. As was explained to the House, my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party were against military action in Iraq before it started because we were not persuaded that the war was justified. We did not believe that either dossier displayed any credible threat, immediate or otherwise, from the tyrant Saddam, and that remains our opinion. There was no justification for the war then: ergo, there is a real question about the legality of the action that was taken. That is the issue on which we hope to concentrate this afternoon.
As the motion makes plain, we are calling for the Government to publish the advice or advices of the Attorney-General, because without such publication it will not be possible fully to inform the debate. Incidentally, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have described the debate and the disagreement as "legitimate." If we accept that the debate is legitimate, surely it is part of the function of Ministers of the Crown to inform it fully and apprise Parliament of all facts that are germane to the issue. That is beyond contradiction. In calling for the publication of the advice or advices, we call on the Government to inform the House.
Nothing in the "Ministerial Code" prevents the full publication of the advice or advices. In the foreword to the current code, the Prime Minister says:
"I believe we should be absolutely clear about how Ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament."
Paragraph 5 on page 1 states:
"The code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations."
Ministers are expected to observe the seven principles of public life, which include openness. The code states:
"Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
wansanshoo #18 has to be one of the best posts on this sight well done wan
if we ever get a free investigation into this disaster. they would do worse than reading his post from beginning to end at some point.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#53
What's wrong with GSTQ, it is after all our National Anthem...
Iraq, Iraq.... had we finished the job first time round rather than wimping out and letting Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of his own people then the second war would not have been needed.
Complain about this comment
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" were nothing more than the US trying to ensure their oil supplies. All of the justifications for these ill-considered military actions were lies.
Until the perpetrators of these lies - mainly Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons in the US and Blair, Brown and Alasdair Campbell here in the UK are tried for their war crimes then there will be no justice in this world.
It is an international disgrace that these people are not being held to account for thier actions. The support of these "wars" by the Labour party was the end of the road for my lifetimes support of the party. The only person who came out of this affair with any dignity and intergrity was the late Robin Cook. It is just a shame that he never got the chance to enlighten the rest of us as to what went on behind closed doors.
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat 44
No, is the answer however the UN may have been more receptive to an approach considering the circumstances.
Lets not forget, it was the Unionist Parties who ignored the United Nations in 2003.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
#67 deducted3points
"rather than wimping out and letting Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of his own people then the second war would not have been needed."
And just when and where did Bush and Blair say that the invasion of Iraq was to bring about regime change in Iraq?
In fact they strenuously denied that there was any such purpose.
Of course, after the invasion and no WMD were found, they retrospectively justified their action by saying it was a good thing that Saddam had gone.
Some weak minded fools continue to peddle that story.
Which other states do you want us to invade which are ruled by leaders who kill their own people - Sudan? Zimbabwe? Burma? China?
Complain about this comment
Time To Own Up !
I'm as weary as anyone else about this topic. There are very few people out there who believe the war to defend us against so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction -WMD (remember them?)
Untold damage has been done by Labour MPs in the then Government who convinced their supine MPs that we had to bomb Iraq because of Saddam's WMD.
Recently I read that Tony Blair is still digging his heels in and insisting he did the right thing as then Prime Minister, after Lord Bingham, the former senior law lord and one of Britain's most respected judicial experts, described the military action by Britain and the US as a "serious violation of international law".
Why not just own up and say - I was wrongly advised, I got it wrong?
If we could point to a single political event that has contributed to the disaffection towards politics and politicians in the UK this century - this was it.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
68. Of course Iraq was about securing oil supplies. If the Middle East didn't have oil, it would be as relevant as N Africa. Saddam was targeted as he was considered the most unstable element in a highly unstable region that plays a major role in the global economy. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan etc. are stable regimes which is why they are protected and supported.
However, the Iraq war was almost certainly unnecessary as Saddam could have been disarmed, then subdued and even controlled, thereby stabilising the region that way.
This is not new information or any kind of stunning revelation.
Afghanistan, however, has nothing to do with oil. Al-Qaeda was the issue there who were fighting over US forces being based on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.
If Iraq and never invaded Kuwait in 91-92, none of this would ever had happened.
69. The Security Council would not have sanctioned an invasion of Iraq then either, it was believed (by US and UK too) that continued operations would have provoked a region-wide war. Wiser heads were running the country then.
("Lets not forget, it was the Unionist Parties who ignored the United Nations in 2003." For crying out loud. Do I need to mention that the SNP were against any involvement in the Balkans after Srebrenica and a new European genocide had become known? Hardly a torchbearer for humanitarianism.)
70. Are you saying an invasion was planned but regime change was NOT one of the objectives? How does that work then?
Complain about this comment
Did anyone else see Angus Robertson being interviewed on BBC 24 you would have thought that it was the SNP fault about Iraq,I hope it is the BBCs New Years resolution to start having an unbiased reporting of the SNP,come on you TV,Papers fair reporting in the New Year.
Complain about this comment
#67. deducted3points
... Put down rebellious Scots ... Just which nation is it that has these words in its National Anthem? The same GB that wants to put a team in the Olympics?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat,
Iraq was not all about oil reserves. Their location in the middle east would be useful, especailly for the Americans and their global objectives.
"70. Are you saying an invasion was planned but regime change was NOT one of the objectives? How does that work then?"
Regime change was never their primary objective. It was all about WMD, where are they? Hidden well? It's quite possible but regime change should have been the sole reason we went into Iraq. But instead we went into Iraq to clear some dangerous weapons, despite having nuclear capabilities ourselves, never finding them and then the Americans thought it would be bright to tell the Iraqi Army that they have lost their jobs! But even still the Americans, and Britain never had enough soldiers on the ground and the massive stockpile of weapons that Saddam was practically handed over to the newly unemployed trained soldiers...
I do believe something must be incredibly wrong when a sixteen year old themselves know that the war was one big, gigantic mess.
Complain about this comment
#72
The Afghanistan "war" had little or nothing to do with Bin Laden. The Taliban were in the road of the Unocal desire to build a pipeline.
"On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day. Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer." "
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
Please note the dates of these articles. I really wish people would get educated when it comes to these important issues.
Our (UK) actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal. The fact that we were providing "cover" for the "REAL" US intentions are no excuse.
Complain about this comment
Re 61
Saddam Husein may well have garunteed your mates religous freedom, but at huge costs to many other minorities in Iraq.
I have read through the posts, I feel that the war in Iraq was poorly planned, the invasion went well but the coalition failed completely to understand or plan for the post war requirements.
However what seems to be forgotten here is the world is a better place for having removed Saddam. Look at what he did to the Kurds. It can never be a bad thing to see a guy like that get his just deserts.
Another point this brings out is the damage religion does the world over. If we had a world with no religion it might be a better place.
Complain about this comment
72. wrote:
"Of course Iraq was about securing oil supplies. If the Middle East didn't have oil, it would be as relevant as N Africa"
RE, I worked for a couple of years developing contracts between Scottish Companies and the absolutely MASSIVE Libyan oil industry. In what way is oil in Libya not oil? In what way is Libya not in North Africa.
Check your facts, N.African oil is hugely relevant.
Complain about this comment
#73.......lionalibaba..... Like thats gonnae happen !!! the so called "Scottish media" (led by BBC "Scotland") are getting worse the closer we get to an election.
I dont have the slightest doubt that history will judge them to be found wanting.
I could give you a list of blatts and reporters names but the moderator would censor it . So much for free speech........
Complain about this comment
Lets be honest here, it was a big exercise in regime change to control a country for many uncouth reasons of which we shall never know.
Complain about this comment
Let's be clear about this, the reason why Gordon Brown wants our troops home is, because there is no money to keep them out there.
The UK has more debt than any other developed country in the world - currently £118 billion - and rising daily. This is also why he's trying to get single mothers, with very young children, back to work. He's a desperate man, who knows the next general election is just over one year away.
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat #72
Is the Nationalist stance on the Balkans relevant to this discussion, or merely an attempt to deviate from the subject matter ?
Second point, you have no idea how the UN would have reacted, you've made a personal assumption and expect us to accept your version of what you think may have happened, think again.
Thirdly, read post #18 again, it may help with the denial issues.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat
Relevant As North Africa
Libya, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), holds the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, followed by Nigeria and Algeria.
According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Libya had total proven oil reserves of 41.5 billion barrels as of January 2007, up from 39.1 billion barrels in 2006. About 80 percent of Libya?s proven oil reserves are located in the Sirte basin, which is responsible for 90 percent of the country?s oil output.
Libya remains "highly unexplored" according to reports by Wood Mackenzie, and only around 25 percent of Libya is covered by exploration agreements with oil companies.
The under-exploration of Libya reflects the impact of former sanctions and also stringent fiscal terms imposed by Libya on foreign oil companies.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat #72
Your post is misleading regarding the nationalist stance, but dont let the truth stand in your way.
ALEX SALMOND'S STATEMENT ON KOSOVO
Delivering his reply this evening [Monday] to the Prime Ministerial statement on Kosovo, the leader of the Scottish National Party Mr Alex Salmond MP said:
"A few nights ago, the Prime Minister asked us to do the right thing in Serbia and by the people of Kosovo.
"This evening, I want to suggest that the right thing to do is not for politicians to pursue a misguided policy and then ask our servicemen to implement it.
"Few people are in any doubt that President Milosevic bears the prime responsibility for the human tragedy in the Balkans. He and his supporters have subjected innocent civilians to daily assault, indignity and murder.
"However, if we are to sanction intervention in Serbia then the policy must be capable of achieving two things. It must be capable of weakening Milosevic, and helping Kosovo.
"A bombing campaign will achieve neither. Indeed, the chances are that it will make both worse.
"In virtually every country which has been blitzed this century, the reaction has been to steel the resolve of the civilian population. This is what happened in London in the Second World War. It is also what happened in Clydebank.
"Why should we believe that there will not be the same reaction in Serbia?
"The evidence from the much respected BBC correspondent John Simpson is that the bombing campaign has effectively silenced the Serbian opposition to Milosevic.
"Nor has the bombing campaign helped the people of Kosovo. The atrocities against them have intensified. The Prime Minister claims this is nothing to do with the NATO action. Does anyone at all take that opinion seriously?
"General Sir Michael Rose who commanded the UN Forces in Bosnia certainly does not. He argues that the Serbian militia, unable to do much damage to NATO forces 20,000 feet up in the air, will exact revenge on people who are much more vulnerable on the ground.
"Thus far the NATO action has consolidated the position of Milosevic, and further jeopardised the position of the Kosovo Albanians.
"It must be of little consolation to those being driven from their homes, or worse, to know that the campaign in the skies above is actually meant to be for their benefit.
"There are those who call for the intervention of NATO troops on the ground. This would at least have the prospect of helping those who we are meant to be helping. However, the NATO powers have set their face against it for the understandable reason that it carries the likelihood of substantial further loss of life.
"What then is the alternative to the present misguided campaign - accepting that there are no easy answers?
"Well, we could expend the billions of dollars currently being flung at Serbia in high explosives on stepping up our humanitarian efforts to help Kosovo.
"We could turn what has been a partially effective arms embargo into a full scale economic blockade of Serbia, until her leadership comes to their senses in the treatment of the people of Kosovo.
"We could also accept that if Milosevic were prepared to sign up to the Rambuillet accord then it could be policed by United Nations and non-NATO forces.
"Almost fifty years ago, NATO was formed as a defensive alliance against potential aggression from the Soviet Union.
"It achieved its primary purpose without firing a single shot. But now for the first time it is acting in an offensive capacity outwith any specific remit from the United Nations.
"It is an action of dubious legality, but above all one of unpardonable folly - an action which thus far has made matters even worse for the very people it is meant to help.
"All war is evil, but there is something deeply disturbing about warfare which can be so conducted by remote control - missiles and bombing which sanitise conflict - at least on our side.
"Our servicemen deserve support, but the politicians who sent them there are not above criticism or responsibility.
"Sometimes the right thing to do is to negotiate patiently even with those we find repellent, to recognise that economic influence is more effective than military might, and to accept the moral strength of relying on international law even when it seems frustrating and ineffective.
"The correct thing to do is not to substitute folly for wisdom, aggression for diplomacy, or might for right."
Complain about this comment
#67. deducted3points wrote:
#53
"What's wrong with GSTQ, it is after all our National Anthem..."
There's not much right with it, my friend. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Is the reticent_ cowpat finished ? Thank god. What a pompous and pathetic excuser for the lousy labour party.
Complain about this comment
#77
You forget completely (as do most apologists for the Iraq disgrace) that it was the US and the CIA that funded Saddam Hussain, took him out the gutter and led him to power. We said nothing - absolutely nothing - when he set about the Kurds because he was at that point still our man.
He only became an enemy when he stopped doing what he was told.
The stuff about the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs was brought up retrospectively as one of the desperate ploys to try to justify the invasion.
This pathetic platitude about the world being "a better place without Saddam Hussain" makes me feel sick. The desire to remove Saddam Hussain did not justify the death one innocent Iraqi mother or one innocent Iraqi child. You think to get one man it's okay for us to cause to be killed over half a million innocent civilians.
Are you mad? Or just the sort of convenient
sloppy thinker that Labour thinks it can persuade to keep voting for them.
Lets imagine some looney takes control of Scotland. (and Scotland's got lots of oil) So it would be okay for America to invade and fire cluster bombs through the Barras in Glasgow and kill the equivalent of the total populations of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen to get him. That's what we have just done to Iraq.
And don't start me on the rape of Fallujah by American troops which was worse than anything that was done at Sarajevo.
WE ALL KNOW IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND WE ALL KNOW THAT TURMOIL IN IRAQ SUITS AMERICA. THEY HAVE ALL THE OIL WELLS LOCKED UP AND THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE TO STAY. THEY WONT LEAVE UNLESS THEY ARE SURE THE PUPPET IRAQ GOVERNMENT WILL DO AS IT IS TOLD.
I'm off to bed now before I really lose my temper.
Complain about this comment
74. No country has such lyrics in its national anthem. Scottish nationalists claim they are in the UK anthem but they are wrong. Even the primary nationalist research tool that is Wikipedia shows that.
76. The Afghan conflict is about a pipeline? That's one of the more extreme conspiracy theories I've ever seen. That your proof appears to be just one speech clearly demonstrates that.
77. "If we had a world with no religion it might be a better place. "
Amen to that, brother. The only sensible post in this batch!
82. Kindly read up on the matter instead of just making another hashed attempt to trash a UK Govt. There was no desire among the UN Security Council to continue operations into Iraq in the 92 Gulf War.
84. Thank you for proving my point. There's a genocide in progress on Europe's doorstep and Salmond argues relying on economic sanctions and diplomacy instead of military action. How long before Salmond's plan would have had any effect, if ever? How many more people would have been killed? His idea was ridiculous and sheer folly.
"Negotiate patiently"? When has that ever worked in such circumstances? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
A key part of Salmond's independence strategy is to oppose every UK Government. If the Tories are in charge, Salmond agrees with Labour. If Labour are in charge, Salmond agrees with the Tories. You know where Labour, Conservatives and LDs stand but the SNP are all over the shop as there is no application of any principle other than 'Always disagree with the UK Govt of the day'. Transparent to all but the most devoted and sycophantic nationalists.
87. "Lets imagine some looney takes control of Scotland. (and Scotland's got lots of oil) So it would be okay for America to invade and fire cluster bombs through the Barras in Glasgow and kill the equivalent of the total populations of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen to get him. That's what we have just done to Iraq."
That's not even close to being a relevant comparison. Ridiculous.
"And don't start me on the rape of Fallujah by American troops which was worse than anything that was done at Sarajevo."
Fallujah was a stronghold for the militia, who were pretty much the town's sole inhabitants when the US operation began. Comments such as "Rape of Fallujah" only go to reinforce the belief that you are complete idiot. When will you ever research from something other than partisan trash?
Complain about this comment
86. I support the Conservative Party as I've said several times already. Certainly no fan of Cameron but I support the party's ideology.
However, I will agree with Labour when I believe they are right. I will disagree when I believe they are wrong.
The same goes for the SNP, I will agree with them when I believe they are right. The laws of probability suggest this surely must happen soon.
Surely.
(Even Salmond realises he's messed up as we barely hear a squeak from him nowadays, when before we would hear from him almost daily. His '.scot' junket to Barcelona and a nauseating political broadcast on Children in Need has been it since his humiliating failure to win Glenrothes.)
Complain about this comment
RE obviously swallows all the spin that is put in front of him.
I would not even grace his latest offering with any response except to point out that Fallujah was full of men, women and children when it was assaulted, many of whom were shot trying to swim across the Euphratres to escape , others who were gunned down as they opened their doors to US troops and students with their hands up who were shot down at the campus. Lots of this is captured on film.
750,000 dead in Iraq - but, hey, who cares?
Complain about this comment
Instead of a pointless set of point scoring posts on Fallujah I suggest everybody should Google in "Fallujah" and take a bit of time to digest the full horror of what happened to a town with at least 50,000 civilians trapped in it when the US army set about it to extract revenge for the death of 4 American contractors.
There are hundreds of pages
There is a lot of very unpleasant photo evidence so this is not for those with delicate stomaches.
The actual truth and the official US story on this are very easy to separate.
Complain about this comment
Ex Pat
Are you going to supply any evidence with the self opinionated drivel you continually serve up?
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
92. I used to provide links to all my evidence but I got a little tired of doing so while you nationalists made wild claim after another but then refused to back any of them up.
So now I just post what I know and then watch you lot fail dismally to discredit me.
You can get as abusive as you want but it will never cover up the vacuous and ridiculous nonsense you lot post.
"Scotland only receives 28bn a year in spending but pays 45bn a year in taxes", was it? Utter tosh. Not even Salmond agrees with that rubbish!
Complain about this comment
Ex pat #93
I would ask you to read the attached and tell me where you find any lies as opposed to just expressing an anti SNP opinion.
Contrary to your accusations I do not seek to discredit you as a Tartan Tory, there would be no trick to that.
Alex Salmond wrote:
EIGHT weeks ago I replied to the Prime Minister's broadcast announcing Nato's military action in Kosovo and described it as "unpardonable folly". Let us look at the tragic events that have unfolded since.
Since the bombing campaign began, 800,000 Kosovo Albanians have been forced from their homeland, tens of thousands remain in jeopardy inside the country. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds raped.
The original reason given for this action - described as a "war" for the first time by the Prime Minister only last week - was to prevent a humanitarian disaster. In fact, a hugely dangerous and uncertain position for the Kosovar people has been turned into a humanitarian catastrophe. Meanwhile, Nato's "smart" weapons have thus far managed to destroy buses, trains, a Kosovo village, a prison, a hospital and the Chinese embassy. These mistakes don't include the deliberate destruction of bridges, hotels and a television station, which were designated as legitimate military targets. Unless we take the position that the ordinary people of Serbia have a particular responsibility for the crimes of Milosevic and his henchmen, then this spilling of civilian blood cannot be justified. Unlike Serbia, most Nato countries are democracies where we have the right of freedom of speech - even if in the minds of some tabloid editors this is a right which should not be exercised. Every one of us, therefore, has a collective responsibility for what has been done in our name. Milosevic is the gangster of the Balkans. His regime has committed crimes against humanity and he and these forces should be brought before international justice. There is general agreement on this as there is support for service personnel who have been landed with the extraordinarily difficult task of prosecuting this conflict on our behalf. However, the politicians who give the orders are not above criticism and indeed the experience of the last two months is that there has been a desperate need for more informed debate and a press corps prepared to act as more than cheerleaders for the government. Only in the last 10 days has it finally dawned on some sections of the fourth estate that there are legitimate questions to be asked about Nato tactics. The three key questions to be answered are: Has the Nato action made things better or worse? What could and should have been done instead? And what is to be done now? On the first there can now be little doubt that two months of bombing have made things infinitely worse. The first thing that happened to facilitate the action was the withdrawal of the 2,000 United Nations and Red Cross monitors who were the only protection the Kosovars had. Thus bombing without a commitment to a ground campaign provided the cover for the Milosovic forces to go about their dirty war. Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent push for a ground campaign contrasts markedly with his over- confident statements at the start of the conflict which ruled it out. On the second question the clear alternative course for the Nato powers was to seek a United Nations sanction for effective economic pressure on the Serbian regime. After several weeks of allowing private companies in alliance countries - during a bombing campaign - to export fuel and oil cargoes to the Serbian state oil company, Nato moved to interrupt this supply. However, we have heard little of the promised oil blockade over the last two weeks, presumably because in the aftermath of bombing the Chinese embassy, this would seem a difficult option to enforce on the growing section of the world community who stand in opposition to the Nato tactics. The third issue is what is now to be done. Having abandoned the United Nations as the provider of the legal authority for international action, the Nato powers are currently engaged in the difficult task of seeking Security Council agreement to find a draft resolution to halt the war. The UK media is full of stories of the mass desertion of Serbian forces. However, the weakening of the resolve of army conscripts does not necessarily point to an imminent collapse of the Serbian regime. The Nato partners are meanwhile attempting to paper over their clear differences, with the Italian prime minister now openly calling for a bombing pause and the German chancellor rebuking the bellicose rhetoric of his British counterpart. At the end of the day the key administration that matters in deciding the future conduct of the campaign is the USA, and the messages are increasingly that the Clinton administration is looking for a way out, with the distinct smell of fudge in the air. At American instigation, Russian envoy, Victor Chernomyrdin, and Finnish President, Martti Ahtesari, have been trying to include the Russians and Chinese in a potential deal which could secure a cease- fire in Kosovo, an end to the bombing campaign and a return of the refugees. We should support these efforts, albeit with the hope that America's anxiousness to extract itself from a conflict that Madeleine Albright thought would last two days does not mean that Milosovic ends up with far more than he deserves and the refugees with much less than the justice to which they are entitled. Since this war started a Scots parliament has come into being, although it is one with no competence in foreign affairs. However, it has the right to speak on anything it chooses. I am certain that many and perhaps most Scots parliamentarians support the peace efforts of the Russian and European envoys. I am pretty certain that MSPs would support the need for the United Nations not just to lead peacekeeping operations, but also to be restored as the international authority which can legally sanction military intervention. I am certain that MSPs would support any motion that would assist agencies and charities helping the Kosovar refugees in the Balkans or here in Scotland. Scotland's new politics should not restrict itself simply to the domestic. Our parliament must not be shut away in a shortbread tin. And when our parliament does speak, then let us hope that it finds the courage, when necessary, to speak with a different accent on such matters than the prevailing winds of folly from Westminster.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
94. Well, this leapt out straight away!:
"Since the bombing campaign began, 800,000 Kosovo Albanians have been forced from their homeland, tens of thousands remain in jeopardy inside the country. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds raped."
So how much of this mass displacement, ethnic cleansing and war crimes/crimes against humanity was a result of the bombing campaign and how much was committed by Serb forces?
Did Allied bombs rape the women? Did Allied bombs kick down doors and kill everyone inside? Did Allied bombs destroying "buses, trains, a Kosovo village, a prison, a hospital and the Chinese embassy" drive 800,000 Kosova Albanians from their homes throughout the entire province?
What Salmond listed there was the humanitarian disaster that provoked the bombing campaign to start in the first place....but here he tried to spin it as a result of the bombing!
Those bridges and railway lines were destroyed to disrupt movements of troops and supplies. Those 'hotels' were destroyed as they were government/military buildings (all the real hotels seemed remarkably intact when I was in Belgrade/Kosovo in 2000-03). The TV station was inciting the killings in its broadcasts.
Now, bear all this in mind, re-read Salmond's article and maybe you'll see it from another angle.
I have no time or patience to discuss the 'ground war' option or fume over Salmond's ignorant/opportunist 'analysis' that the bombing made things "infinitely worse" which only makes me dislike him more.
Complain about this comment
#95 Ex Pat.
The last paragraph speaks volumes, you have inadvertently painted an image of yourself.
If you have neither, time, patience or the will to discuss then may I suggest you don't reply at all.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
The catching of Saddam Husain (part 2)
RE
Just to establish your actual opinion ...to get Saddam Hussain the US/UK alliance was justified in killing
1. 1 innocent Iraqi?
2. 10 innocent Iraqis?
3. 100 innocent Iraqis?
4. 1000 innocent Iraqis
5. 10,000 innocent Iraqis?
6 100,000 innocent Iraqis?
7. As many innocent Iraqis as it would take
as they're only brown skinned moslems
None of your obfuscation or diversions now to confuse the issue.
Answers not permitted
1 Only kidding. It was WMD we were after really
2 Saddam Hussain was in league with Al Qaeda
Complain about this comment
#88 Reluctant-Expat
I agree with you
The third verse is -
"Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring
May he sedition hush
And like a torrent rush
Rebellious Scots to crush
God save the King."
and of course it strictly is not the National Anthem as it has never been sanctioned by Crown or Parliament. Which of course you knew also 8-)
Complain about this comment
Goody, people are jumping in to my little holes (oo-er)!
#88. Reluctant-Expat
"74. No country has such lyrics in its national anthem. Scottish nationalists claim they are in the UK anthem but they are wrong. Even the primary nationalist research tool that is Wikipedia shows that."
Och, that's a great post! I enjoyed it!
One of the first things you are told when you start higher education now is you are NOT allowed to cite Wikipedia in any academic writing. You have used it to justify your argument and to hold the high ground. I am going to give a good mark, as blogs are also about entertainment.
This song has several unforgivable errors:
1. The melody is far too Elizabethan.
2. The base line is not all that groovy.
3. It doesn't have a middle 8.
4. It needs to be more 'allegro'.
Seriously though, I notice that you are always posting stats and links as evidence to support your position. But as your evidence on this occasion was so unashamedly blatant and inadequate with holes right through it (just a sticking plaster attempt to show your argument has reason) and filppantly put, now inevitably all your other arguments will be seen in the same vein. Does this not bother you?
----
#98 handclapping
Thanks for enabling my point above!
Complain about this comment
RE
Waiting................
Complain about this comment
Iraq MPs reject law on UK troops
"Iraq's parliament has rejected a draft law that would allow troops from the UK, Australia and a number of other countries to remain after 2008
The bill would have given these foreign forces a legal basis for staying in Iraq once the current United Nations mandate ends on 31 December"
Complain about this comment
The contrast beween the Sunday Herald and the laughable rag titled Scotland on Sunday was never so pronounced than it was today.
There is a bizarre - nay, completely bonkers - piece in SOS praising the UK's great sucess in Basra by Tory Michael Gove and a risable piece from Farquarson which is so shallow that it is hardly of a standard to appear in the Daily Sport. Do they believe anything they write?
In the Sunday Herald there is today from MacWhirter a magnificent destruction of Brown's idiot plan to destroy the UKs finances for half a century in order to save his premiership and the usual informed and hardhitting stuff from Ian Bell and Trevor Royle.
How long before then plug is pulled on SOS and the Hootsmon?
Complain about this comment
#99
I was all ready to quote that self same verse but handclapping beat me to itr.
Can I claim the prize in any event?
That said, if you think GSTQ is bad, I would argue that the X-Factor winning Christas No. ! is worse.
Just my humble observation...
Complain about this comment
#103 Fit_Like
I never got nothing ( Gosh, but RE is a bad influence! ) so I'll let you have half!
I can't as I'm more of a Classical fan, but if you know owt about pop give #75 in the Waiting Game thread some TLC and make his/her sleigh bells ring for Christmas
Complain about this comment
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: They lied about Iraq in 2003, and they're still lying now
"Gordon Brown has been spinning his own fairy tale of Baghdad"
Complain about this comment
Harold Pinter's absolutely compelling account of the deep wickedness of the attack on Iraq was featured in several newspapers after his death two days a go.
He could have no finer valedictory.
Complain about this comment
I have just picked up on the end piece of your blog. The S East of England has FOUR times the population of Scotland. For it to suffer the same number of casualties as Scotland in our illegal wars indicates very starkly the hugely disproportionate casualty count Scotland seems to carry all the time. When they're
handing out the funerals we always get first turn.
Complain about this comment
This issue will become more politically charged as time goes on
Complain about this comment
The barbaric behaviour of Israel towards Palestine could inflame the whole Middle East. It could give Syria and Iran compelling reasons to take up arms thus providing America the excuse it is looking for to set about them.
I hope not.
Complain about this comment
Where's our famous "peace envoy" in all of this?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS