Reply to: Life in Iraq

[sasguru]

.

Please clarify.

Dream on ...Apparently trees aren't worthy of his christian love. It's not as if they support the planet now, is it?

sp...

[bogeyman]

Alfred every now and again,you attempt to justify your tree hugging views

Sorry Chico, but I must ask, what do you think the phrase "Tree Hugger" means, exactly?

"Tree Huggers", are surely environmentalists, aren't they?

You seem to use the phrase as a kind of pejorative noun for anyone who isn't 100% gung-ho for war in the middle east.

Please clarify.

[sunnysan]

ME Involvment

Well I think judging the war on the basis of morality is wrong so lets look what its acheived.

1) More stable ME.
No

2) A more democratic ME
In theory yes but in reality the democracies are pretty shakey and resource intensive to uphold.

3) More womans rights
Possibly

4) More secure energy resources
No

5) Increased properity.
No not at all and nary a dent in the narcotics economy

6) Eradication of global terror
No, no improvement in the security situation there or in the west and considering the resources consumed and that this was the primary objective.

7) Improving our global position
No, we have played our hands and diplayed significant weakness and lack of resolve, used lives and resources and arguably are weaker politically than before the conflict, with the added blow of losing our moral credibility along the way as well. IE (Is it really possible to condemn Russia for gangland style killings when we effectivly support the state sponsered detention and torture of foreign nationals in foreign countries)

8) Removed a dictator
So wow, there are many dicatators, and is civil war preferable?

9) Removed the taliban
Ok, but they are coming back now.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking at how things have played out as well as the historical evidence, which, with a bit of chronological extrapolation may have ( And I suspect was ) been predicted by historians and strategist it becomes clear to me that this has been a fckup. And now we have no moral credibility and military capacity to actually deal with the people who may pose a significant threat. In fact.... they can blow up nukes under ourt noses and we can do hmmmmmm let me think... nothing!

[sasguru]

This message is hidden because Chico is on your ignore list.

Ah ZG, you missed a Chico classic. I've taken him off my ignore list - I need the entertainment value ...

[AlfredJPruffock]

Excellent. I can point out his stupidity without his ignorant repostes.

So Chico has clearly never heard of the earlier Afghan adventure. If he had a brain he'd be dangerous

Aye SG

History will teach us nothing,

PS wonder if Chico knows what happened to the previous British campaign in Mesopotamia/Iraq ?

[sasguru]

Excellent. I can point out his stupidity without his ignorant repostes.

So Chico has clearly never heard of the earlier Afghan adventure. If he had a brain he'd be dangerous

[Chico]

This message is hidden because SAD GURU is on your irrelevant list

Enough said.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Forget about the delivery - was it justified in the first place? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

During the early 19th centaury, Britain had enormous interests in terms of trade on the Indian subcontinent.

It was essential, from the point of view of the British, that a friendly government be place in Kabul to control the various tribes of Afghanistan and prevent opposition to the British rule in India.

The previous puppet government, led by Shah Shuja, in Afghanistan had collapsed and so British and Indian forces marched on Kabul in 1840 in to restore their power.

Despite initial military successes, by 1842 a popular revolt forced the occupying forces to retreat from the country. A massacre then followed as 20,000 British and Indian troops were attacked relentlessly on the long march back to India.

It is said that there was only 1 survivor of the retreat from Afghanistan, one Dr. W. Brydon. A second British incursion into Afghanistan came in 1878 when military planners decided upon the need to counter a perceived threat from Russian imperialist interests by establishing the borders of the empire north of India.

Although better prepared for the campaign than in 1840, Anglo-Indian forces once again failed to realise that the fractured Afghan tribes would unite to cast the British out.

This took a long time to happen, after major British victories at the Khyber Pass and Kandahar they reached Kabul and began to take petty vengeance on the Afghan people. By 1880 the British once again prepared for a military withdrawal as it had become clear that they were fighting the kind of attritional battle that they could never win. Constant attacks from the various fractured tribes were wearing the men down.


The tribes finally united under one banner when the British were decisively defeated outside Kandahar in 1880. The rest of the army, given changing political conditions in Britain, had no choice but to withdraw to India. Afghanistan finally did recognise its ties to Russia after the brief war of 1919 when Afghan forces attacked the British in India.

[sasguru]

Forget about the delivery - was it justified in the first place? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

He he. Bird brain is back ....Nice one Alf ....

BTW That answer should prove that Chico is real and not a virtual character or bot.

[Chico]

Judging by the fact that the retreat from Kabul was the biggest ever defeat for the British Millitary I think not.

Forget about the delivery - was it justified in the first place? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Alfred every now and again,you attempt to justify your tree hugging views. One question I have for you - never mind the War in Iraq, was the War in Afganistan justified?

Judging by the fact that the retreat from Kabul was the biggest ever defeat for the British Millitary I think not.

[Chico]

Remind me of the good things that the invasion has gave us ?

If you dont think there are not enough troops in Iraq Im sure they will have you as a volunteer - I anticiapte your blogs from Frontline Iraq with great anticipation ... whats that you say - dont fancy it ?

Very well then.

Alfred every now and again,you attempt to justify your tree hugging views. One question I have for you - never mind the War in Iraq, was the War in Afganistan justified?

[AlfredJPruffock]

Yes we should have sent in more troops, Rumsfeld did not listen to advice and we are now paying the price. Invasion was a good thing, however the subsequent peace keeping and nation building was a failure.

Remind me of the good things that the invasion has gave us ?

If you dont think there are not enough troops in Iraq Im sure they will have you as a volunteer - I anticiapte your blogs from Frontline Iraq with great anticipation ... whats that you say - dont fancy it ?

Very well then.

[swamp]

We should have done it properly the first time, if that's what you mean.

No.

Apparantly Bush senior decided against going in to support the Shia uprising because they didn't want a civil war on their hands. Bush senior was also (apparantly) against Bush junior going in for the same reasons.

I think it's pretty clear we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. We should have sent more troops to Afghanistan instead.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Yes we should have sent in more troops, Rumsfeld did not listen to advice and we are now paying the price. Invasion was a good thing, however the subsequent peace keeping and nation building was a failure.

Perhaps you invaded the wrong country - hint which nationality was the most represented on the Sep 11th planes ?

Mere detail I know - what they want to buy a shed lot of weapons from us ?

Carry On Warmongering !