At least now we know why Sadam was such a bully. He understood the situation better than we did.
No he didn't. He was a brutal dictator who had gassed and killed his own people whoever they were - Kurd, Shia or moderate Sunni - and whatever they wanted changed. He invaded two neighbours in the pursuit of more money to make his country into a great power. And , but for the Israeli airforce , he would have had the nuclear bomb by the time of the Kuwait war. We would by now have massive nuclear proliferation across the region- including in the states that have now fallen apart.
He was also mortal - even if a coup attempt didn't get him. Sooner or later his regime would end, and his, dysfunctional, psychotic, sons would have taken over and been less successful at holding Iraq together. Given what happened in Syria - with a similar lopsided, demographic situation, an even more powerful army and more stable leadership - Iraq was always likley to face the current problems at some point.
these "rebels" that we armed are now calling themselves ISIS
Things are much more complex - apart from in the view of the Assad regime, and its backers in Moscow and Iran, who claim any oppoistion are terrorists. There's all sorts of opposition groups in Syria. We never armed ISIS - which, until it walked off with the Iraqi army's equipment, operated captured Syrian (Russian) arms. The Western backed groups are rather conspiciously now using western arms (from the Gulf states) but they are not used by ISIS or al Nusra.
No he didn't. He was a brutal dictator who had gassed and killed his own people whoever they were - Kurd, Shia or moderate Sunni - and whatever they wanted changed. He invaded two neighbours in the pursuit of more money to make his country into a great power. And , but for the Israeli airforce , he would have had the nuclear bomb by the time of the Kuwait war. We would by now have massive nuclear proliferation across the region- including in the states that have now fallen apart.
He was also mortal - even if a coup attempt didn't get him. Sooner or later his regime would end, and his, dysfunctional, psychotic, sons would have taken over and been less successful at holding Iraq together. Given what happened in Syria - with a similar lopsided, demographic situation, an even more powerful army and more stable leadership - Iraq was always likley to face the current problems at some point.
Impossible to hypothesize about it. It just seems rather coincidental that after he was removed all hell broke loose.
Galloway to Jacquie Smith on 'This Week': "You killed a million people in Iraq. YOU...KILLED....a million people in Iraq. It's incredible that you have the brass neck to be sitting here now urging another Iraq war after what you've already done."
There are quite a few ISIS flags being flown in the UK at regular intervals and events. So be clear this is a group that behead British hostages, are hovering on genocide of some groups, some of these groups are not in a war zone either. If you wish us to sit back and watch these events then we should have left Kosovo alone and we frequently hear cries of we should have done something in Rwanda and we should certainly never have been involved in Libya. We are not the world's policeman but would you stand and watch as anyone was mugged on the street.
There has been enmity between Shiah and Sunni branches of Islam, probably for centuries. What, I think, is happening now, is a growing fledgling branch of Islam, meaning there are now three Islamic sects. I think the numbers of IS are increasing because young Muslims in this and other Western countries, are angered and frustrated by what they see as a betrayal of Islamic teachings and principles, by so called "moderate" Muslims, including their parents, who have, as they see it, thrown their lot in with the Infidels (us). As a Pakistani politician said a few months ago - "Democracy is incompatible with Islam", therefore, as we are, essentially, an ethically Christian democracy, we are, by definition, their enemy, and they can't understand why their elders choose to live quiet, comfortable lives rather than being fired up with the same hatred and loathing for their hosts as them. If my conclusion turns out to be right, i.e. that IS signifies the birth of a new, radical branch of Islam, then I don't think they can be destroyed by military means. At the moment, for the reasons I gave above, IS are not short of new recruits from this and other Western countries, whose aim is our destruction, to be replaced by a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. So long as there are sizeable Muslim populations in the Western world, there will be a ready supply of radicalised young men eager to join them. If, by some miracle, moderate Muslim, the world over, renounced Islam and converted to any other religion, or chose no religion, the well of new recruits would dry up, and IS would wither on the vine. I know it's a pipe dream and will never happen, consequently, in my view, the West will, eventually, succumb and become Islamafied. Fortunately, not in my life time.
No they're not.
They are Asians with British passports (which are issued out like confetti).
I hate to sound like a liberal bed wetter but if they are born in this country then they are entitled to a British passport as you or I are. Or should entitlement to a passport be based upon race and who long your ancestors have been on this island?
Comments
No he didn't. He was a brutal dictator who had gassed and killed his own people whoever they were - Kurd, Shia or moderate Sunni - and whatever they wanted changed. He invaded two neighbours in the pursuit of more money to make his country into a great power. And , but for the Israeli airforce , he would have had the nuclear bomb by the time of the Kuwait war. We would by now have massive nuclear proliferation across the region- including in the states that have now fallen apart.
He was also mortal - even if a coup attempt didn't get him. Sooner or later his regime would end, and his, dysfunctional, psychotic, sons would have taken over and been less successful at holding Iraq together. Given what happened in Syria - with a similar lopsided, demographic situation, an even more powerful army and more stable leadership - Iraq was always likley to face the current problems at some point.
Things are much more complex - apart from in the view of the Assad regime, and its backers in Moscow and Iran, who claim any oppoistion are terrorists. There's all sorts of opposition groups in Syria. We never armed ISIS - which, until it walked off with the Iraqi army's equipment, operated captured Syrian (Russian) arms. The Western backed groups are rather conspiciously now using western arms (from the Gulf states) but they are not used by ISIS or al Nusra.
Impossible to hypothesize about it. It just seems rather coincidental that after he was removed all hell broke loose.
Galloway was out of order on This Week
There has been enmity between Shiah and Sunni branches of Islam, probably for centuries. What, I think, is happening now, is a growing fledgling branch of Islam, meaning there are now three Islamic sects. I think the numbers of IS are increasing because young Muslims in this and other Western countries, are angered and frustrated by what they see as a betrayal of Islamic teachings and principles, by so called "moderate" Muslims, including their parents, who have, as they see it, thrown their lot in with the Infidels (us). As a Pakistani politician said a few months ago - "Democracy is incompatible with Islam", therefore, as we are, essentially, an ethically Christian democracy, we are, by definition, their enemy, and they can't understand why their elders choose to live quiet, comfortable lives rather than being fired up with the same hatred and loathing for their hosts as them. If my conclusion turns out to be right, i.e. that IS signifies the birth of a new, radical branch of Islam, then I don't think they can be destroyed by military means. At the moment, for the reasons I gave above, IS are not short of new recruits from this and other Western countries, whose aim is our destruction, to be replaced by a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. So long as there are sizeable Muslim populations in the Western world, there will be a ready supply of radicalised young men eager to join them. If, by some miracle, moderate Muslim, the world over, renounced Islam and converted to any other religion, or chose no religion, the well of new recruits would dry up, and IS would wither on the vine. I know it's a pipe dream and will never happen, consequently, in my view, the West will, eventually, succumb and become Islamafied. Fortunately, not in my life time.
No they're not.
They are Asians with British passports (which are issued out like confetti).
I hate to sound like a liberal bed wetter but if they are born in this country then they are entitled to a British passport as you or I are. Or should entitlement to a passport be based upon race and who long your ancestors have been on this island?