Congratulations Mr Bush and Mr Blair

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bowser-Mong, Feb 23, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This will probably upset someone but here goes!

    I would like to congratulate Mr Bush and Mr Blair for their determination in making such an aresend of things in Iraq. Not only have hundreds of soldiers, sailors and airmen lost their lives in the name of OIL but Iraq may now be on the brink of Civil War. A bit of advice: next time think all of your actions through ie have a follow up plan so that the next country you decide to invade will have contigency plans set in place. Once again my congratulations.
     
  2. I'm not especially going to defend blair and bush here but I do have a couple of things to say.
    The iraqi people, at least, certain sections of the various religious communities have created most of the problems in Iraq. Under Saddam the minority sunni population opressed the majority shia and kurdish populations. After gulf war 1 the shia ringleaders of the uprising in basra first watched their children hung from lamposts and then were executed themselves. You can say it's the fault of the us/uk for not realising this would happen but the backlash and infighting of the different religions in iraq is purely because of their differences and I bet would have happened sooner or later (saddam, post-saddam).
    The "civil war" that may happen out there is the fault of the people involved, they were given the chance for a political voice and some opted out. The tit for tat revenge killings smacks of some of what happened in NI, with the army caught in the middle.
    They have bitten the hand that feeds them in a way. Whatever your opinion on the causes of the iraq war the army on the ground is there for the protection of the people and to get iraq up and running. This is a trend seen in many arab countries. They burnt the EU embassy in Palestine even though the EU was the single greatest contributor of aid (before Hamas).
    Say what you like about Bush, I have no time for him.
    I still truely believe that Blair has a crusade against what he sees as evil forces and wants to act for the good of all. Obviously the way he goes about it shows niavity and his grasp of the situation leaves much to be desired. Yet he has shown with kosovo, afghan and his push at gleneagles and throughout his premiership that he has at least tried on issues such as 3rd world debt more than most leaders.
    I'm no Blair supporter but I think people judge him to harshly and often without all the facts. On the iraq conflict definitely without an understanding of arab culture and history, which unfortunately he is also severely lacking
     
  3. Soooooooo foreign terrorists blow up a mosque, Iranian backed militias go around doing the old revenge and kill bit and yet Bush and Blair get blamed....?

    Puzzling.
     
  4. Had Messrs Bush and Blair had a GENUINE reason to invade Iraq and if they had tried to at least provide a followup to assist the Iraqi population in the aftermath then I believe that the country would not have become the quagmire that it seems to have become. They must have had some inkling that this fcuk up would bite them on their arses.
     
  5. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but Im not sure Messrs Bush and Blair read this forum. Touching sentiment though :D
     
  6. If our troops and those of the US army aren't there as an assist to the iraqi population then what are they doing there? Obviously they're just opressing the masses, killing innonents, performing atrocities on a scale far worse than the iraq insurgents and of course saddam hussien. Seriously, who do you think you? There is and always was an assist. Some of it they didn't go about in the right way, they should have predicted far better the effective of removing the baath party who controlled the police and other services.
    The reason bush gave was wmds. Blair liked that one as well. Yet if you look at pre-war speeches blair also talked about opression of the iraqi people, the threat iraq posed to it's neighbours (israel, kuwait, saudi) and other, far more humanitarian reasons. Remember we were out there between both wars enforcing no fly zones, being shot at on a regular basis and having to maintain a strong presence to deter further agression.
     
  7. My view is that modern Iraq has been a tinder-pot waiting to explode since its birth out of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. The land and the people were previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire and the land allocated to the new state of Iraq comprised previously Persian and Arab lands, two discrete cultures. The people of Iraq were, and still are, mainly comprised of two ethnic groups: Arab (approx 80%) Kurdish (approx 20%) and were / are mainly Muslim (approx 95%), although modern Iraq was created as a secular monarchic state, thus other religions were / are allowed to be practiced. Of the Muslim population, around 65% were / are Shi'a, 35% were / are Sunni.

    The post WWI monarchy ruled Iraq in much the same way as Saddam Hussein did: it was an autocratic regime supported by the military, thus any attempts to forcibly change the political structure of Iraq were quickly put down. After a period of turmoil, mainly caused by ineffective kings after the death of Faisal I, a group of army officers took power in 1958. Within 5 years, after a few assassinations and internal struggles, the pan-Arab Ba'ath party took control of the country under the leadership of General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, until he handed over power to Saddam Hussein, his chosen successor, in 1979.

    Saddam Hussein's 24-year rule continued the tradition of the suppression of the masses with disproportionate power and money going to his fellow minority Sunnis, and especially his extended family and fellow Tikriti tribesmen (Tikrit Mafia), although he was happy for Iraq to remain secular, embracing Islam only as and when he felt the need to boost his popularity. The Kurdish population was violently suppressed during Saddam Hussein's rule, as demonstrated by the Iraqi army's use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Birjinni in 1988.

    This history makes it unsurprising that now, in the absence of an all-controlling dictatorship, the power vacuum has been filled by local tribal leaders who each want control of their regions and religious leaders who wish to rule the country under a Islamic umbrella. A previous Current Affairs thread discussed the enthusiasm with which Iraqis turned out to vote in the recent election, but I consider that this was less enthusiasm for the imposed framework of 'western' liberal-democracy, more a desire to ensure that at least until the coalition forces retire from Iraq that their particular group within the Iraqi population has influence over how Iraq is run.

    The former ruling, but minority, Sunni population is most unhappy as the application of democracy combined with the tribal / religious voting patterns means that they will be ruled by the whim of their enemy; the Shi'a population is enjoying taking revenge for the many years of brutal suppression; and the Kurds are trying their hardest to lobby, by ballot and bomb, for a separate and protected homeland. Add to this internal strife the invasion of foreign Islamic extremists with the desire to attempt to cause regional turmoil / revolutions and global uprisings and it's no wonder that the country is on the verge of a civil war.

    Whilst I agree fully that George W. Bush failed completely in appropriately planning for post-Saddam Iraq and that Tony Blair failed completely to grasp the opportunity to delay the invasion till the post-war planning had been finalised, even had the coalition gone in with a fully formed plan, these factors would nonetheless exist.
     
  8. If bush is reading this could he pm me please? I have some issues I'd like to raise with him... foreign policy, religion's power on american policy (right neo-conservatism (christian) and jewish), inequality, abortion, women's rights, capital punishment and finally how the hell someone can be *that* stupid :p
     
  9. what i find puzzling is the lengths and risks these 'foreign terrorists' went to to actually avoid killing anyone, tying up guards and demolishing the building during 'closed hours'. Why not just drive a dirty great truck bomb into the place during morning prayers as is the norm.
     
  10. That had puzzled me too Invited. It was almost as if someone didn't want to kill too many Shi'a. Foreign terrorists? I would say so.
     
  11. Crabby: paragraphs are your friend!
     
  12. Some replies edited or deleted. Please keep it sane.

    They may not personally read it, but in the case of the UK Government, people who are only a short tactical bound from the Celestial Navigator do.
     
  13. Interesting article from MoD Oracle:

     
  14. Thank you ICG for stating the bleedin' obvious.

    It was obvious, from the very moment the first RPG went down the range , post the famous 'Mission accomplished' speech.

    Actually, it was obvious a long, long time before that , but some people in 'influential' positions with book learning , Ostritch attitudes, loyalties to 3rd party nations and controlling (so they thought ) a bunch of higgnerint ay-rabs thought it would all be sunshine and flowers, if you deposed one side, and humiliated them into the bargain.

    I guess the 7 pillars of Wisdom isn't required reading in Neo-con 101.

    Ach , whats the point, the public couldn't care less.
     
  15. Crabby, I'm a Republican, but no fan of Bush. He's a ...what's your slang for retard? Ah...mong. WMD's were not the issue. The agenda was to invade, and establish a military presence in the region...a staging base, if you will. So we were lied to. The average citizen goes out to the polls, casts his/her vote, and goes home to the kids. And that's democracy in a nutshell. As for the other issues you brought up...abortion is legal (too bad it's not retroactive), women's rights is a non-issue. They own us, and they know it. Capital punishment? If a guy kidnaps, rapes and buries a 9 year old girl alive, he is fcuking dead meat. Lethal injection is too humane. I say skin him with sandpaper and tie him over an ant hill. But that's me.