I know its been done but....

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Devil_Dog, Sep 9, 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. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/iraqreport.ap/index.html

    Pretty obvious to any sensible person that the coalition made a collosal (deliberate?) mistake.What paeses that shiet out of me though is that none of of this fack sticks will come out and admit that close to 3000 lives have been lost because of stupidity and more stupidity piled on top of sheer ignorance.
    If the American people were half as smart as they have been led to believe, we would never have got to this catastrophic point.
    Somebody should and must be held acountable.But Im not holding my breath on that though.
  2. Devil , I made the point some years back that certain documents in the CIA archive appeared to have disappeared and other more sexy ones appeared.

    Not sure if www.archive.org still holds the snapshots , but I remember one in particular, which just about said "Saddam-Osama ties? Buwahahahahhaa" or words to that effect.
  3. Here's the Beebs take on it:


    What has always amazed me is that the US did try to sell the lie to the public, saying there were terrorist camps in Iraq. This was true, there were some, but they were all in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone, where Saddams military was not allowed to get in there and kick their arses - as enforced by the UK/US and no fly/troop movement arrangements! It makes me so bloody mad that Bush and Bliar said that he was harboring terrorism, where in reality, he'd have got rid if he could, the people stopping him were our good selves!

    Poor old Saddam, he's really growing on me lately! Stop his utterly ridiculous trial, and put the b*stard back in power. I reckon he'd have Iraq sorted out in 2 months straight. Wouldn't be PC correct, but who gives a toss at this juncture, better to kill a bunch of people in one go and get it over and done with, rather than string it on forever!
  4. What drives me nuts is that a very significant number of Americans still think that Sadaam had something to do with 9/11 even after GW admitted (in a moment of rare honesty) that he didnt.May I add that his handlers probably didnt expect the unexpected question that led to this answer?Hence no pre-cooked response.

    It is almost impossible to imagine that Bush DIDNT know that there were no WMD in Iraq.All the evidence pointed to the fact that the Iraqis did not present an immediate danger and yet the whole invasion thing happened.Bush and the powers behind his throne used fear very effectively to convince the US populance that everyday was borrowed time so long as Sadaam was around.As Zoid implied,maybe Sadaam was one of the better things that happened to Iraq since GW got to office.At least he kept his country together.You could walk down the street without wondering what your chances were of making it back home to your family.

    Say what you will but Im convinced Sadaam's time was way better than what we have wrought on the Iraqi people.
    Oh,did I also mention that the US might possibly have the most propagandaized population in the Western world?They reelected the guy ,didnt they?
  5. Its obvious, despite the non-existent link to Al Quaida and the tenous evidence of WMDs why Bush/Blair invaded Iraq. Simply put it happened because they wanted to. The neo-cons had it on their agenda even before 9/11. In Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" in Jan 2001 Dick Cheney passed a message to the outgoing Clinton administration's defense secretary (William Cohen) that he wanted to get the new president briefed up on Iraq and "different options" to deal with Saddam. In the months prior to 9/11 Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was advocating a partial invasion of southerm Iraq to sieze about two thirds of Iraqi oil wells in what he called "enclave strategy" and he urged the President that "there's nothing to stop you from siezing it". Well nothing apart from it being illegal under international law. The lunatics had taken over the asylum and 9/11 just gave them the excuse they wanted to inavde Iraq. Why Blair decided to join in this madess I can't work out. Anyhow the rest is history and along with 3000+ military deaths add 40,000+ civilians. Nice work Mr President.
  6. Ah Gents we are back to what Old Thick Willy has been asking for more years thens he's been on Arrse, Why oh Why did 'WE' invade Iraq.
    john still bewilderd
  7. I'm gobsmacked, the last five years have been an utter disaster.

    What would be the impact on morale for The Brits and it's forces if we pulled out of Stan and Iraq. Would it mean defeat, Any thoughts?
  8. Why did 'YOU' invade Iraq? Because 'YOU' supported this decision in 2003. And not only 'HE' supported it but namely 'YOU'.
  9. Cr4p. WE didn't, WE were not given the choice and the Sun Readers who voted for this government didn't fcuking care. I know "I was just following orders" is no defence but mutiny is a grave offence.

  10. It must be very difficult for the powers that be to realise what they have unleashed by taking sadam out.

    We have Bush that realy did not understand much about the outside world when he became president, and Blair who wanted a war 'like Mrs Thatcher had'.

    What a mess and it is difficult to see what the way out will be short of more global conflict.

    If PTP could point out what he does not like about the above without being abusive.
  11. The British were sold OP TELIC on the back of WMD, not Al Qaeda. Actually, I believed a lot of what I was told about WMD prior to 2003(the 45 minutes line was patently bollocks, but it made sense that Iraq still had WMD). Whether those WMD were enough of a threat to justify invasion, well realpolitic seemed to suggest removing Saddam would stabilise the middle east, don't laugh, that's what we were being led to believe, remember!

    I believed in WMD during TELIC 1, when we were getting no duff gas attack alerts (Anyone who hasn't experienced the absolute terror of masking in nine for real, believe me it's not fun). It was one hell of a shock to find that we'd all been lied to so massively.

    The most annoying thing is that Yes, we were lied to, but by bluesky dreamers who hadn't thought it through, and proceeded to make a c*ck of the victory thanks to a lack of preparation.
  12. Sergy, trust me. Long before I found ARRSE I was asking just why WE where going to invade Iraq.
    I have zero time for Sadam and will not lose a seconds sleep if I hear he is strung up with a length of rusty knotted barbed wire, detestable person.
    I have asked on this and other boards for the Real reason why the invasion took place, one poster on this board gave a fair explanation from an artical in an asian magazine review.
    It's high level politics from the more extream section of the US political System.
    At first I said Oil, then I allowed myself to be distracted by other comments from people who SEEM to know more then I.
    I still think Oil was a major part of the reasoning but there is in My Humble Opinion more to it then just oil.
    Part is the Containment of Rooshia, Old Right Wingers still fighting the 'War' they grew up.
    The Far East worries me more then Boris who knows all about the Mutual Assured Destruction we grew up with.
    Bush and his poodle have opened a can of vipers, and I would like to dream that one day they will be held accountable.
  13. Mr.Johnson!

    By 'YOU' I didn'y mean namely you. It is possible that you opposed the war in 2003 but the vast majority of British military and a good half of Britons supported the war.
  14. That'll be me you're referring to then Sergey.

    Guilty as charged. Ah well, just gullible I guess...
  15. I'm not sure about the "vast majority" of the British military, Sergey. The "Vast Majority" of those in a position to influence the decision to go, with careers in mind, perhaps.

    Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no. I think the vast majority I know (even on training before we went) seemed to me to be of the opinion that we were going to finish off what daddy didn't in GW1, and greedily grab the oil, neocon style. Everyone looked at it, in true army fashion, as a very serious jolly boys outing, and, of course, the first bit was extremely well executed and morale was good, and the casualty rate was very low, hence even those who didn't initially support it felt OK about it. It is the utter lack of planning and disastrous reconstruction phase that has rankled everyone.