Iraq - The End game

[sasguru]

Well of course the UN are dealing with that.

The same UN that all the chickensh1t weasels on here were suggesting we let resolve the Iraq crisis.
Personally I would be in favour of us and the Yanks (and anyone else not simply feathering their own national nests!) resolving a few problems worldwide, say Zimbabwe for example. However, I am resigned to accepting that our Governments will never get the green light to take action there due to the burgeoning wimpish culture that is so prevalent in the UK these days. Most of the moral guardians have gone off to spin in their graves, and those of us left with any moral conviction to see an end to tyranny find ourselves shouted down by the cowards and the white feather brigade. That's modern British democracy I suppose.........."I'm alright jack feck you!"

More empty rhetoric. Try reading some history. British (and most other countries) foreign policy has always (quite rightly) been about defending the national interest. Of course that implies a judgement of what's in the national interest. The Iraq war was not and will never be, and that was apparent to all thinking people. The 1million people anti-Iraq war march in London in 2003 contained not a few Tories and right-wingers.
On the other hand no-one complained about the invasion of Afghanistan. We should have concentrated our resources there and killed Osama. Instead we took our eye off the ball. Now there's a mess in both countries and Osama is sniggering away in his cave.

[shaunbhoy]

British (and most other countries) foreign policy has always (quite rightly) been about defending the national interest.

Yet you seem to have a huge problem when the americans (quite rightly in your opinion) act in their national interests when deciding upon foreign policy. Are you just a hypocrite or are you confused?
Furthermore, it could very easily have been argued that it was in Britain's national interest (quite rightly in your opinion) to have come to an agreement with Hitler in 1940, as was offered. We chose not to however, and do you know why? Because back then the gene pool had not been diluted with namby-pamby handwringing shandypants like you. Back then we had people with some balls that were prepared to stand up for what was right. They must be very proud looking down on today's thin yoghurts!

[sasguru]

Yet you seem to have a huge problem when the americans (quite rightly in your opinion) act in their national interests when deciding upon foreign policy. Are you just a hypocrite or are you confused?
Furthermore, it could very easily have been argued that it was in Britain's national interest (quite rightly in your opinion) to have come to an agreement with Hitler in 1940, as was offered. We chose not to however, and do you know why? Because back then the gene pool had not been diluted with namby-pamby handwringing shandypants like you. Back then we had people with some balls that were prepared to stand up for what was right. They must be very proud looking down on today's thin yoghurts!

Point out to me where "I have a huge problem when the americans (quite rightly in your opinion) act in their national interests ".
There is always a judgement to be made about national interest and in 1940 the right faction won. However that does not mean that war is ALWAYS the right option.

Do try and be logical rather than emotional, will you?

[shaunbhoy]

Point out to me where "I have a huge problem when the americans (quite rightly in your opinion) act in their national interests ".

The peaceniks on here are always harping on about american foreign policy being the root of all evil. To be fair to you, you seem to be genuinely confused rather than out and out militant towards them, preferring instead to let your inherent personal self-interest form your opinions for you. Not always the most ethical approach.

There is always a judgement to be made about national interest and in 1940 the right faction won.

Well how can you be certain? Had we made the decision to form an alliance with Adolf, who's to say we would not still have an Empire? That would have served our "national interest" better in many people's eyes, critically in the eyes of the ruling elite I don't doubt. If by "right" you mean morally right then I would agree.

[sasguru]

The peaceniks on here are always harping on about american foreign policy being the root of all evil. To be fair to you, you seem to be genuinely confused rather than out and out militant towards them, preferring instead to let your inherent personal self-interest form your opinions for you. Not always the most ethical approach.

Why am I genuinely confused? That description would better suit you. And what has my personal self-interest to do with anything? I am not personally affected by the Iraq War.

Well how can you be certain? Had we made the decision to form an alliance with Adolf, who's to say we would not still have an Empire? That would have served our "national interest" better in many people's eyes, critically in the eyes of the ruling elite I don't doubt. If by "right" you mean morally right then I would agree.

Because given the nature of Adolf any agreement made with him would not be worth the paper it was written on. He would have slowly whittled away any pretence of equality and Britain would have become a vassal state.
And yes I do believe in fighting for what is morally right _ I just don't believe we can do it all over the world and it certainly was NOT morally right to invade Iraq on the pretence of helping the Iraqis when we are not prepared to do it in Rwanda, Sudan and countless other places.

....

[sasguru]

Actually a better precedent to compare with Iraq would have been the Tory refusal to join in the American adventure in Vietnam. Unfortunately the modern Tories seem to be hell-bent on looking as much like Labour as possible.

[shaunbhoy]

Why am I genuinely confused?

I'll explain below and I promise to try and keep it as simple as possible as I can sense you are floundering somewhat.

Because given the nature of Adolf any agreement made with him would not be worth the paper it was written on. He would have slowly whittled away any pretence of equality and Britain would have become a vassal state.

On the other hand, it would have bought us time to prepare our own position and allowed him to continue with what was his real agenda, that of conquering in the East. Over time he and Stalin would have fought themselves to a standstill leaving us as the pre-eminent force in a new Europe. Pure national self-interest.

And yes I do believe in fighting for what is morally right _ I just don't believe we can do it all over the world and it certainly was NOT morally right to invade Iraq on the pretence of helping the Iraqis when we are not prepared to do it in Rwanda, Sudan and countless other places.

You see this is where your logic falls to the ground. If you genuinely DO believe in fighting for what is morally right, and you agree with me that intervening in places like Rwanda and Sudan is the correct thing to do from a humanitarian and altruistic perspective, how do you reconcile that statement with your previously stated belief that, and I am quoting you here....British (and most other countries) foreign policy has always (quite rightly) been about defending the national interest ? It can in no way be construed as in our own national best interests to commit troops to such a venture. Wholly contradictory you have to agree!

Game, Set, and Match to SB again!


NEXT!!!!

[Bagpuss]

Shaunbhoy doesn't really believe this stuff he writes, he just likes to argue, oh yes he does! oh no he doesn't!

[Ardesco]

On the other hand, it would have bought us time to prepare our own position and allowed him to continue with what was his real agenda, that of conquering in the East. Over time he and Stalin would have fought themselves to a standstill leaving us as the pre-eminent force in a new Europe. Pure national self-interest.

Learn your history. It was the fact that Hitler was fighting so many fronts that lead to his downfall. If we had signed an agreement with him he would have been able to bring his full force to bear on russia (The US would have not wanted to get involved with that one) and he would probably have won in the log run.

Most of Hitlers losses in Russia were due to supply lines cut off by the Siberian winter and not having the available equipment/resources to resupply his troops. If he had only been focussing on that front he would not have had these problems and would have probably kept on rolling in to Russia taking it as his own.

With Russia unde his belt he would have had few problems coming over here and finishing us off before he went on to the good ol US of A in the future...

[shaunbhoy]

Learn your history. It was the fact that Hitler was fighting so many fronts that lead to his downfall. If we had signed an agreement with him he would have been able to bring his full force to bear on russia (The US would have not wanted to get involved with that one) and he would probably have won in the log run.

Most of Hitlers losses in Russia were due to supply lines cut off by the Siberian winter and not having the available equipment/resources to resupply his troops. If he had only been focussing on that front he would not have had these problems and would have probably kept on rolling in to Russia taking it as his own.

With Russia unde his belt he would have had few problems coming over here and finishing us off before he went on to the good ol US of A in the future...

What a naive perspective you have Ardesco. You have no conception of the resources that were available to Stalin and the ruthlessness with which he would have deployed them regardless of cost. Besides, once Hitler had headed East and become too embroiled with matters there, who is to say that we could not have tacitly fomented uprisings in all the occupied western states forcing him to either deploy valuable troops back from the Eastern front, or alternatively allow us to move in and gain a foothold we would never relinquish? We could have stitched him up like a kipper had we chosen to and in doing so benefited from many of the perks the US of A received in being seen as the benign saviours of western europe. It could all have been so different had we chosen to be that ruthless. The mistake some of you limited thinkers make is to childishly believe that just because we tell someone like Hitler our stance one day that we are somehow bound by that further down the line. Thank God the likes of you are tied up as code monkeys and not involved in the machinations of governance.