Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Bush....Blair....are you proud?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 11 Jun 2014 23:55:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2014 07:25:43 BDT
At the end of WWII, the warring factions in Yugoslavia were united under the Dictatorship of Josip Tito, despite the fact that the Nazi-puppet Croat regime had carried out a systematic slaughter, of the Serbs, during the war. A decade after his death Yugoslavia descended into chaos. Another dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to stamp his authority but he was forced from power, largely due to military intervention by the West. The former states of Yugoslavia - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo are now at peace, so it would seem that the intervention was relatively successful. However...this is Europe. It is an entirely different story in the Middle-East.

During the Arab Spring the ruling regimes in Egypt and Libya were overthrown. Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown....again....following military intervention by the West. Gaddafi ran a relatively secular regime.
Syria has descended into civil war. It is ruled by a minority Shia population, but again it is relatively secular. Rebel Sunni fighters have been aided by insurgents with links to Al-Qaeda. Ironically they receive support from the West. The western powers have refrained from military intervention, largely due to the ruling regimes close ties to Russia. If the West had it's way though, the hard-line Islamists would succeed in overthrowing Assad's dictorship and take power.
Hard-line Islamists are gradually assuming power in Egypt and Libya. Violence is increasing.

Iraq...under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein....was ruled by a Sunni minority, with a large Shia and Kurdish population. Again...the regime was relatively secular.
In 2003 the U.S. and U.K. invaded. The rest is history. Thousands of American and British servicemen lost their lives, in the so called liberation of Iraq. Was it a success? According to the BBC reporter `Nick Robinson' approximately 10,000 Iraqis died, in the period between the first and second Gulf Wars, at the hands of Saddam's regime. There is no doubt Saddam was a brutal dictator BUT....according to Robinson over 100,000 civilians have been killed in post-war Iraq. Hardly a successful humanitarian effort on the part of the western Allies. Now Iraq is in grave danger of falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists, who could pose a genuine threat to the West (unlike the ghost WMDs). This would not have happened under Saddam. Another failure on the part of the West. Not to mention the financial cost.

Now Iraq has descended into violent chaos again. Islamic hard-liners have risen up against the new regime. The western puppet government is in danger of collapse.

I can see a day, in the not to distant future, when Egypt, Syria, and Iraq become Islamic Theocracies. Governed by Sharia law and ruled by Islamic extremists with Al-Qaeda sympathies, and a pathological hatred of the West. And we helped put them there! Then what? A repeat of 1948/1973. All out war with Israel!

We tried a similar tactic when we invaded Persia, during WWII. We installed a pro-western puppet, who was despised for his western values. He was deposed in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution. We obviously haven't learned. appears that throughout history, certain nations, particularly with multi-cultural populations, are better off being ruled by a secular dictator.
Why do we, the West, interfere in the politics of nations (and sometimes intervene militarily) with an entirely different culture to us???
Oh yes...I forgot....OIL!!!

Well done Bush, Blair, Cameron etc....

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 07:22:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2014 07:23:03 BDT
Latest news reports claim that the Islamists are now less than 100 miles from Baghdad. The Iraqi army are deserting their posts, leaving their equipment and weapons behind.

How long before the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, once the U.S. have fully withdrawn. The U.S. and U.K. spent billions training and supplying these armies. That's on top of the financial and human cost of the wars.

When intelligence reports indicated that Bin-Laden was residing in Pakistan, did the U.S. invade? navy seal team did the job. When future generations judge Bush and Blair's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be up there with Hitler's invasion of of the most costly errors in history.

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 10:31:32 BDT
G. Heron says:
I could see the logic of the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attack ( I am not saying I agreed with it) but then while the fighting was still going on to invade Iraq which was an enemy of the Afghanistan Taliban made no sense. The idea seemed to be that by invading the country and killing people this would make them popular with the population who would then immediately change their whole culture to a peaceful democracy where everyone loved blue jeans and apple pie. The fact that the UK went along with this madness is to our shame.

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 12:09:41 BDT
Billions down the drain,in Iraq,this is what happens when you elected a simpleminded trigger happy cowboy!

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 16:59:50 BDT
Shows what happens when the US votes the Republicans in.

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 17:36:37 BDT
Easy to be wise, after the event.

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 17:55:08 BDT
B.A.Pilgrim says:
The problems in the middle East is an ongoing problem from former imperial occupation of the region. I think the west has inherited the problem and it is a huge problem. Sadaam Hussein was a threat, even if it was a small one, and if the west had backed down he'd probably have thought himself invincible once again. He had a chance in the gulf war to calm down. He was lucky to get this because in my book once you have a tyrant cornered you should finish the job swiftly - not unlike happened to Gadhafi - another hopeless example of a tyrant given one chance too many. If in the power vacuum there is a problem I can't see why the West is held completely to blame.

The consequences of the war I can't see being solely placed on the shoulders of the west. Militant Islam has been on the rise In the region for decades and is very skilled at manipulating the west for training and weapons, knowing full well it would use this firstly against other Muslims and secondly against Western targets.

It should also be remembered that countries like Britain took a long time to get to the still undeveloped democracy of today. we had a civil war and all sorts of problems afterwards. Even in the 19th and 20th century various sectors of society were fighting for a vote. We shouldn't expect the rest of the world to get to democracy without bloodshed, though of course the world should do all it can to minimise it.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2014 18:26:34 BDT
"not unlike happened to Gadhafi - another hopeless example of a tyrant"

Yes, shame on him for not trading in the USD. Shame on him for having healthcare and education for all.

"If in the power vacuum there is a problem I can't see why the West is held completely to blame."

Perhaps because it was the West's interference that caused said 'power vaccum'. Would there have been a power vacuum if we had not invaded Iraq ?? Would there be a power vacuum in the now forgotten Libya, if the West had not interefered ?? Syria, Egypt. Everywhere the US and it's cohorts set foot ends up an absolute disgraceful mess.
Now look, the US were so desperate to get into Iraq and now the country is unravelling. The Iraqis have called for help from the US - the response being "We're not getting involved, it's not our fight". Funny, that's never stopped them before.

"and 20th century various sectors of society were fighting for a vote"

I must have missed the part where women decapitated those who wouldn't give them the vote, or planted bombs in marketplaces and killed children etc.

"We shouldn't expect the rest of the world to get to democracy without bloodshed"

Perhaps we shouldn't attempt to force our way of life/beliefs onto peoples and cultures that our governments clearly don't understand. In these nations a 'tyrant' or 'dictator', or whatever dismissive term you wish to use, is virtually necessary to ensure stability. Yes, it's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than how these countries have ended up with the Western 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Now there's lawlessness, perma-violence and complete disarray.
Thanks 'murica... and not forgetting the 51st state.

Posted on 12 Jun 2014 18:40:54 BDT
Stu says:
G.Heron, most of us on this forum got fed up with paul first time around and pushed his thread to the 10,000 mark and all he's doing now is going for the same mark again saying the same things. Can I ask you sir as a decent person, to stop posting to him, to stop this stupidity.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Important Announcement from Amazon
153 27 Aug 2014
What's wrong with atheism? 3461 1 hour ago
For Stu 354 10 hours ago
Je suis Charlie 548 14 hours ago
death by cancer 743 17 hours ago
Being held accountable for your actions. 1 18 hours ago
The Sword Of Damocles 342 1 day ago
Off Topic - The Cinnamon Trust 30 1 day ago
the pub 121 1 day ago
Could thems Jesus make thems vanilla frappes from thems water? 48 1 day ago
A fair forum. 2754 1 day ago
Women: the sure fire way of defeating ISIL 71 1 day ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  9
Initial post:  11 Jun 2014
Latest post:  12 Jun 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions