oddly optomistic Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I don't. I'm not denying that at all. It's clear however that the first Gulf War was a success. It achieved its aim of removing Saddam from Kuwait. That's it.:lol:Not sure what how his voting intentions affect the argument but the denial and rebuttal amused me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 If you're sticking to those narrow parameters then yes, it was a success. If you want to widen the issue a little then things get more complex, and a lot less positive for the West. What? The narrow parameters of the actual war that is being talked about. I haven't commented on what we did before or after the war. There are clearly many failures of the West when it comes to the Middle East. A lot of them added to the disaster of going in to a 2nd Gulf War. Removing Saddam from Kuwait wasn't really one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Perhaps you could describe what this hole is. Are you denying that we supported Saddam, that the US provided ingredients for chemical or Biological weapons? Which part have I got wrong, or are you another that is happy to take the "West knows best" position even when history shows this is hardly ever the case. Strichener, NO ONE is denying that Western foreign policy with respect to Saddam Hussein's regime in the run-up to the First Gulf War was poorly conceived and a contributory factor to the emergent circumstances that led to our intervention. All that is being said is that the decision to put boots and tanks on the ground to expel Saddam from Kuwait and drive him back into Iraq and away from the Kuwaiti border was a military success, in that it ended the violation of sovereignty of Kuwait, which would otherwise have continued indefinitely, and which was a #badthing. The fact that ethnic tensions still existed in Iraq after the First Gulf War, that Kurds and Shias were still oppressed and that the region continued to be unstable, leading to subsequent conflict, is not relevant to the question of whether that specific military intervention had positive effects. Those prevailing difficulties would have still existed had the Western MNF chosen not to go to war with Saddam 25 years ago. Kurds would still have been slaughtered. Shias would still have been brutally treated. Saddam would still have had chemical weapons, and Iraq would still have been a sectarian nightmare. The only operative difference of non-intervention would have been that Kuwait was an occupied territory of Iraq. This is an additional #badthing that our intervention got rid of. Scrambling for Western actions that made Saddam powerful and the current state of play in Iraq in order to say that the military intervention itself was bad or unsuccessful is like saying that our involvement in World War Two was likewise, because we signed Versailles, creating the political environment in which Hitler could rise to power and that our failure to take Berlin before the Russians laid the groundwork for the Cold War that nearly led to the annihalation of the planet in the Cuban Missile crisis. It's breathtakingly dumb and the definition of whataboutery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Has strichener said the safeword yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Are you suggesting that if we had supplied deadly gases to Hitler in, say 1935, we would have therefore been wrong to declare war on him in 1939? Have a word with yourself.The war was a victory, it does not mean it was a success on the improvement to the people of the Middle East. Not a single intervention since our broken promise of 1916 has in the end worked out well. As for WW2, the two sets of wars are actually not far out, and a good comparison. We fought the first to stop the rise of a Central Power, that could no longer be tolerated, although a victory in the end, we did not secure the destruction of said Central Power. Like 1918, 1991 there were people then saying sooner or later we'll need to finish the job. Shamefully, they were right but once again the UK/US/France were clueless on what to do once "mission completed" Edited October 5, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I take a number of things into account before making my decision. In the end I voted Labour. What were the "number of things" you took into account? Who are the biggest fuckers? Who are worse than a man down? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The war was a victory, it does not mean it was a success on the improvement to the people of the Middle East. Not a single intervention since our broken promise of 1916 has in the end worked out well. As for WW2, the two sets of wars are actually not far out, and a good comparison. We fought the first to stop the rise of a Central Power, that could no longer be tolerated, although a victory in the end, we did not secure the destruction of said Central Power. Like 1918, 1991 there were people then saying sooner or later we'll need to finish the job. Shamefully, they were right but once again the UK/US/France were clueless on what to do once "mission completed" Exactly. Those that continue to think that the West has had any positive effect on the middle east are delusional. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The war was a victory, it does not mean it was a success on the improvement to the people of the Middle East. Ask the Kuwaitis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 All those who justify our meddling on the grounds of humanitarian issues: Explain Mugabe still being in power? Or Kim? Whether apologists for imperialist ambition or simply unquestioning consumers of western propaganda, your simplistic justification really doesn't work. Oh, and "defence industry". Am I the only one who finds this a horribly insulting description of an enterprise devoted to killing, often on a massive and indiscriminate scale? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The war was a victory, it does not mean it was a success on the improvement to the people of the Middle East. Not a single intervention since our broken promise of 1916 has in the end worked out well.The lives for Kuwaitis got noticeably better and we didn't cause the lives of Saddam's other victims to get noticeably worse than they would have been in our absence. Quod erat demonstratum.As for WW2, the two sets of wars are actually not far out, and a good comparison. We fought the first to stop the rise of a Central Power, that could no longer be tolerated, although a victory in the end, we did not secure the destruction of said Central Power. Like 1918, 1991 there were people then saying sooner or later we'll need to finish the job. Shamefully, they were right but once again the UK/US/France were clueless on what to do once "mission completed"If anything it fits my example excellently. Just because we were wrong to arm Saddam (for this, read destabilise Western Europe with an arms race in the run-up to the Great War and our lack of effective post war strategy to prevent the rise of Hitler) doesn't mean that when Hitler rose we shouldn't have fought him or that fighting and defeating him was anything other than both a military success and a good thing for the people of Europe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 What were the "number of things" you took into account? Who are the biggest fuckers? Who are worse than a man down? Local issues, national policy, ideology and personality of the candidate to pick a few. My options were a Tory on the right of her party, a climate change denying UKIPer, a Lib Dem woman who didn't really cover herself in glory and an Alnwick town councillors representing the Greens. In the end I chose Labour. I'd much rather take a number of issues into account before casting a vote than blindly walking into the voting booth to vote for the party I 'support'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 All those who justify our meddling on the grounds of humanitarian issues: Explain Mugabe still being in power? Or Kim? Whether apologists for imperialist ambition or simply unquestioning consumers of western propaganda, your simplistic justification really doesn't work. Oh, and "defence industry". Am I the only one who finds this a horribly insulting description of an enterprise devoted to killing, often on a massive and indiscriminate scale? That's basically a "you're all sheeple" argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 That's basically a "you're all sheeple" argument. It's basically a statement that anyone who thinks the west have done anything in the middle east to improve anyone's lives, other than those whose wealth is linked to large oil, construction, or weapons companies, should widen their choice of reading material. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Can't believe we've highly educated people on here blowing the bugle for our efforts in the 1st Gulf War, I can't think of a single intervention in the Middle East that's done more good than harm, in other words I can't think of a genuine success. Edited October 5, 2015 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) If anything it fits my example excellently. Just because we were wrong to arm Saddam (for this, read destabilise Western Europe with an arms race in the run-up to the Great War and our lack of effective post war strategy to prevent the rise of Hitler) doesn't mean that when Hitler rose we shouldn't have fought him or that fighting and defeating him was anything other than both a military success and a good thing for the people of Europe.The major difference is after WW2 we had a situation that had to be fixed, and for the most part it was. Meanwhile in the Middle East we had (have) a situation that needs fixed and instead we're insistant on making it worse.The foreign policy in the Middle East since the age of imperialism seems to be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and we seem to want to arm them when in fact The Enemy of my enemy most of the time, turns out to be your enemy too". From the top of my head these are some groups that we are happy to try and help unless someone just as big says no or in some cases, an actual NATO ally call us batshit crazy. Arab Free States The Taliban (if you expand Middle East to the Greater Middle East) Saddam Hussein's Iraq The Kurds Syrian Rebels - including what became/joined ISIL/IS/ISIS The Kurds, again Saudi Arabia (actual allies now) Edited October 5, 2015 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Priti Patel Lisa Nandy Stewart Hosie Tim Farron Melanie Phillips Panel for this week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Priti Patel Lisa Nandy Stewart Hosie Tim Farron Melanie Phillips Panel for this week. Hosie is good 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Priti Patel Lisa Nandy Stewart Hosie Tim Farron Melanie Phillips Panel for this week. w**k w**k (On 9 Mar 2011:Lisa Nandy was absent for a vote on Welfare Reform Bill — Second Reading) Good guy w**k w**k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Priti Patel is laugh-out-loud incompetent: the kind of over-promoted idiot who can barely manage to stutter her way through her memorised list of soundbites without making a complete arse of herself. Most recently, she did just that when grilled by Andrew Neil. It essentially went like this. "We know about your measures for the future, I'm asking you how much, exactly, people are going to lose out on in tax credits." "Well look, what we're saying is that we have a package of measures going forward, and they'll stop the recycling of money-" "No, I know all that - you've just said all that - I'm asking you how much money people will lose out on due to the shortfall between tax cuts and tax credits." "Well look, we have this new package of measures ..." Her approach just encapsulates why people hate politicians - they don't have any grasp of or interest in what they're saying; they just learn a screed and repeat it without any ability to listen to (or even understand) the questions they're actually being asked. Look, I look forward to seeing her slaughtered. Look, she deserves it. Look, she's almost as bad as Caroline Flint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Six days on the trot now The Sun has laid into Charlotte Church over her performance last week. It wasn't great but they might just be going a bit OTT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.