True cost of the Iraq war revealed

Former Member

BlackArab wrote: »

You'll have to point me in the right direction of any that did as from what I remember of the 1980s the British Left was vehemently opposed to right wing dictatorships in South America.

So they were up until they got involved in a fight with Thatcher. There was a book which came out in 1982, which gave a selection of left-wingers the chance to rail against Thatcher and her 'imperialist' war, if I remember it include Tam Dayllel, Joan Ruddock and Tony Benn amongst others. Another good version is John O Farrell's 'Things can only get better' which as well as being funny gives an overview of the hard left position by one who supported it at the time.

As an aside by the left I mean extremists - I don't include mainstream democratic socialism, such as the bulk of the Labour Party

Former Member

It does prove one thing, that all our fancy weapons platforms kick ass.

Sorry, couldn't think of anything serious.

Former Member

For war against developed or semi developed nations, for sure. Britain is only second to the USA

The problem in the case of Iraq of Afghanistan is that defeating the 'official' army is only the start. Short of literally killing everyone on sight (which is more or less what the Russians did in Chechnya) there is no military response to the guerrilla war offered by insurgent groups or the Taliban.

The only other solution is winning the hearts and minds of the locals and making them reject the very presence of such militants. Of that, the US and British have little chance at present.

State of the art stealth planes are mightly impressive but ultimately count for fuck all against a determined army of locals armed only with ageing AK-47s and donkeys.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

The only other solution is winning the hearts and minds of the locals and making them reject the very presence of such militants. Of that, the US and British have little chance at present.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml

Former Member

Now why did you go and post that Runnymede...

Former Member

Oh gosh, nobody would deny most Iraqis despise Al Qaida. But rightly or wrongly the presence of Allied troops makes a lot of people restless, if not plain angry, even if they despised Saddam and reject Al Qaida too.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

State of the art stealth planes are mightly impressive but ultimately count for fuck all against a determined army of locals armed only with ageing AK-47s and donkeys.

Not if they're loaded with Neutron bombs. MUAHAHAHAHA

Former Member

MattLiverpool wrote: »

Does that mean Saddam should have been left to kill at will?

no it means that one of those hundreds of american missiles that missed sadams palace should have hit and killed him but thsat would have ended it too soon !

fuck bush he's a murderer as far as I am concerned he went in on a lie dragged us in on a lie.

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

As an aside by the left I mean extremists - I don't include mainstream democratic socialism, such as the bulk of the Labour Party

I must be getting old, I still remember democratic socialists within the Labour Party :banghead: I'll try and look out for the o@Farrell book, will recommend that you track down this: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Ready-Tom-Clancy/dp/B000C4SV3W/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1/002-0738403-6244047

Former Member

and this: http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Confidential-Intelligence-Conspiracy-Undermine/dp/156025887X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204555504&sr=1-2

Former Member

To be honest I'm not sure I'm disagreeing that the post-war planning wasn't well prepared - I suspect however, this is more cock-up than conspiracy. And those senior generals have a ulterior motive to blame the politicos (and I suspect when we see Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush in print we'll get a different narative)