Crosswords1 min ago
Massacre In Iraq
Does anyone think Tony Blair might be right, and we need to intervene to stop the massacres in Iraq?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chanel5. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Blair and Bush began the process of Iraq breaking up into its component parts; Sunni, Shia, Kurd
even though they were warned their invasion would cause disastrous instability
and they created a situation in which hundreds of thousands have died in the process - way more than were ever harmed by Saddam
Naturally he thinks more military action can stem the flood he facilitated, but we should remember that he continues to be in denial over his responsibility for the mess.
even though they were warned their invasion would cause disastrous instability
and they created a situation in which hundreds of thousands have died in the process - way more than were ever harmed by Saddam
Naturally he thinks more military action can stem the flood he facilitated, but we should remember that he continues to be in denial over his responsibility for the mess.
I don't think - I may be wrong - that Tony Blair wants to intervene to prevent massacres, but to stop the progress of an ultra-extreme fighting force which could further threaten the stability of the region.
I never supported the invasion of Iraq, which was it seems to me extremely misguided and mismanaged, but Iraq was only ever "united" under a sadistic tyrant. Not exactly a multi-cultural paradise :-)
It is hard to believe that even had Saddam survived those divisions would have stayed suppressed. A large part of the blame for what is not happening is down to the current regime, which has stoked Sunnis sense of injustice since the fall of Saddam, and, of course, pernicious outside influences (first al-Qaeda post war and now the overspill from Syria to the west)
I never supported the invasion of Iraq, which was it seems to me extremely misguided and mismanaged, but Iraq was only ever "united" under a sadistic tyrant. Not exactly a multi-cultural paradise :-)
It is hard to believe that even had Saddam survived those divisions would have stayed suppressed. A large part of the blame for what is not happening is down to the current regime, which has stoked Sunnis sense of injustice since the fall of Saddam, and, of course, pernicious outside influences (first al-Qaeda post war and now the overspill from Syria to the west)
Indeed so Ich
but ever since Iraq was 'invented' by the UK in the 1920's it's only ever functioned when controlled by a strong despot. Our attempts to install democracy in the 1950s failed which is why we helped Saddam take power.
Whilst we can never know for sure, there is no evidence that Saddam couldn't have continued (perhaps with some encouragement from us to behave better) as Assad has done but under his rule most Iraqis enjoyed a peaceful and comfortable life until the US started to destabilise him post Iraq-Iran War.
The objective for the current Iraq government was always impossible.
They just couldn't get there from here.
And the instability has spread to Syria. That's in addition to the instability we have fostered in Egypt and Libya.
The despots such as Saddam were unpleasant people. But pretending the recent calamities, deaths and destruction in the Region are an unexpected and unnecessary consequence of our 'improvements' shows Blair up as a particularly despicable egotist.
but ever since Iraq was 'invented' by the UK in the 1920's it's only ever functioned when controlled by a strong despot. Our attempts to install democracy in the 1950s failed which is why we helped Saddam take power.
Whilst we can never know for sure, there is no evidence that Saddam couldn't have continued (perhaps with some encouragement from us to behave better) as Assad has done but under his rule most Iraqis enjoyed a peaceful and comfortable life until the US started to destabilise him post Iraq-Iran War.
The objective for the current Iraq government was always impossible.
They just couldn't get there from here.
And the instability has spread to Syria. That's in addition to the instability we have fostered in Egypt and Libya.
The despots such as Saddam were unpleasant people. But pretending the recent calamities, deaths and destruction in the Region are an unexpected and unnecessary consequence of our 'improvements' shows Blair up as a particularly despicable egotist.
Zeuhl,
I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think it is fair to say that the "instability" in Syria spread from Iraq. The "instability" there as in other countries sprang from a desire for freedom -- doomed to failure -- in the face of ruthless oppression. Particularly in Syria, where initially peaceful pritest was met with genocide effectively. I think the US and the west are to be commended, not condemned, for turning on Mubarak and Gaddafi (previously their "friends") in contrast to Russia, say, which has blindly and amorally stuck by Assad in its own blind self-interest.
I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think it is fair to say that the "instability" in Syria spread from Iraq. The "instability" there as in other countries sprang from a desire for freedom -- doomed to failure -- in the face of ruthless oppression. Particularly in Syria, where initially peaceful pritest was met with genocide effectively. I think the US and the west are to be commended, not condemned, for turning on Mubarak and Gaddafi (previously their "friends") in contrast to Russia, say, which has blindly and amorally stuck by Assad in its own blind self-interest.