The middle east always seems a mystery to me,Sadam gets out of line and the Americans come down hard on him,Israel on the other hand seems to be able to get away with anything,can anyone explain please.

Israel isn't an Islamic nation.

Simple as that.

Sad, but true. Oh why oh why do we have such a warped foreign policy?!

I think this is only part of the answer - a high percentage of Bush's 'neo -con' puppetmasters are Jewish.

My main concern is that British troops might (yet again) be called upon to spill their blood for another nation's cause.

As far as I'm concened, it's the same nation.

?? The UK and Israel are one and the same?? :blink:

The British maybe tied down here for years to come - and in the meantime the British death toll is steadily rising.
With an estimated 100,000 civillians killed since Bush and Blair's 'liberation" of Iraq - I'm starting to think that maybe Saddam Hussain didn't do too bad a job afterall.

Do you call gassing kurd families a good job red squirrell :angry: which is probably the only factual peice of information we have on the mad man :unsure:

Andy, I'd never dispute the fact that Saddam Hussain was a harsh, intolerant leader (although that never bothered the West 20 years ago)-but the fact still remains that he did a better job of keeping out the insurgents than Iraq's present rulers and Western occupying forces.Yes, he ruled with an iron fist but his methods were obviously more effective than any of the current ones.
There is no hard evidence that he gassed Kurdish famlies either - This claim has been pulled apart by the international media and military experts. When over one million civilians lives were lost as a restult of sanctions against Iraq - British and US leaders are in no position to judge Saddam Hussain.

If we now see human rights violations as a valid reason to wage a war on a sovereign nation -then when do we attack China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc?

The philosopy you depict about Saddam Huseein Red Squirrel stands-up in type. So would you welcome a tyrant such as he to run our country?
Twenty years ago there was no sophisticated system of communication from the media in the form of instant pictures beamed into your living room, perhaps we need to blame better communication. I would beg to ask the question would you have liked to live in such an environment yourself ? I am lucky to know some business people from Iraq who tell me despite the insurgants still disrupting and terrorising, the majority of people who want peace in Iraq say things are getting back to a normality that Iraqis accept and they feel free. They tell me that Saddam Hussien and the people of Iraq had to live with the likes of Al Qaeda living and working in Iraq somewhat protected. I am british and would like most people fight for my country and defend democracy. It worries me when people like you run to the defence of evil tyrants who in my opinion should be exterminated appropriately. Next. Shall we discuss perhaps Adolf Hitler

Andy, of course I wouldn't want a tyrant running our country - what a ridiculous question to ask.
My comment about the West not being bothered about Saddam twenty years ago had nothing to do with whether or not it knew of any human rights violations being committed.I was referring to the fact that at the time, Saddam Hussain was the West's favourite Arab dictator - the US government supported him politically and financially.

Your claim (or your friend's claim) that al Qaeda were being protected in Iraq while the country was under Saddam's rule doesn't stand up. The Ba'ath regime and al Qaeda were always fundamentally opposed to each another.As for the country getting back normal - try talking to some British soldiers who've just come back from serving there - or count how many Iraqi civliians are being killed on average each week.

Finally -no, I'm certainly not writing in defense of Saddam Hussain. Just pointing out the obvious fact that under his leadership (as harsh and oppressive as it was) Iraq was not the bloodbath that it's now become.

Andy, If Saddam Hussain did indeed gas Kurdish families - then who might you think supplied him with the chemical weapons in the first place?

British Soldiers must be in the thick of it red Squirrell and they bare the brunt of the dispute because it's obvious they are not wanted so they would see a different picture surely, and lets remember they are paid to be soldiers!

I think Red Squirrell you base your facts through the media which you must know paint a very different picture of events these days

From Google news just now - note this report is only 2 hours old. Maybe the family of this dead serviceman would disagree with your friends claim.
MyFox Burmingham, AL - 2 hours ago
... Another soldier died after his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. ... of the US military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in ...

Sorry Red Squirrell that is well below the belt. In fact i'm not prepared to debate on here if you use those scenarios.

One thing I will say finally is they are Soldiers, volunteer to do what they want to do and suffer a consequence when they become soldiers. Nobody forced them.

No, the only newspaper I buy is the Shropshire Star, Andy. A very good local newspaper - but hardly the best for in depth political and military analysis.
Yes, our soldiers are paid (pretty poorly if you ask me) for what they do but do you think it is right that British forces were sent there in the first place?
Was Blair right to state that he was "willing to pay a blood price" to secure Britain's relationship with the US - Surely the conflict with Iraq had nothing to do with any British interest?

No I dont think we should be fighting any war, but if someone is blowing, senslessly, buildings full of innocent people in in the form of terrorism I think we need to fight this. Unfortunately the terrorists seem to be cowardly and will often base themselves around hospitals, schools and heavily populated areas.

I feel that the selfish attitude you adopt by saying that Iraq doesnt have anything to do with British interests, yet years ago we witnessed the autrocities taking place in Iraq, the question that could have been asked then is, why arent we doing anything?

Below the belt? - hardly .Those 'scenarios' happen to be real events that are going on right now.
Posting that news headline is totally inkeeping with this debate, is it not?

Besides I haven't insulted like you have me - Suggesting that I'd welcome the rule of a tyrant such as Sddam Hussain .. now that's below the belt.

Yes, soldiers do volunteer to do what they do - but still, it doesn't make it justifiable that they're dying in an illegal war for oil.

Suggestion is not an implication Read My Lips :lol:

you can see how wars start cant you :rolleyes:

What did Saddam's Ba'athist regime have to do with al Qaeda or any other Islamist terrorist group?
Iraq had no connection with al Qaeda, 9/11 or any other act of international terrorism.

and in my above comment I did write suggest - not imply. Read my post :rolleyes:
No, it's honestly not a war either mate - I'm cool and more than happy to debate this further -but I'm absolutely whacked right now - so I'm off to bed :D

Speak later

peace-out

Andy, if you haven't seen it already, I recommend watching Michael Moore's 'Farenheit 9/11'
It exposes the Pentagon's deceit about the war in Iraq and the dirty dealings between the Bush and Bin Laden families.

There was no alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda -both were ideologically opposed. Saddam led a secularist state - Iraq was one of the most 'Westernized' Arab countries. It opposed the rule of mullah and disregarded much of Sharia law. Iraq unlike most Muslim countries could never have been used as a base by al Qaeda.
For this reason, al Qaeda saw Saddam as an enemy.In their eyes he was no different to any Western 'infidal'.

We now know that Bush and Blair lied about Iraq's links with global terrorism and WMDs.Iraq never had any long range missile capability either -therefore Saddam couldn't attack the West -even if he wanted to.
If Saddam Hussien is on trial for crimes against humanity - then Blair should be on trial for war crimes -as the illegal attack on Iraq was based on lies.

As for this so called 'War on terror' -If Blair was serious about crushing any terrorist threat towards us then he should have started right here in Britain.
Almost all of the 7/7 bombers were British born -as are many of those behind other failed terrorist plots on British soil.Hardline Islamists have been able to sink roots in our country because our so-called leaders have been too gutless to confront them. Even as far back as the early 80's, the Tory government turned a blind eye to radical imams who were already begining to establish themselves in many muslim communities.
This Labour government has given in to radical muslims time and time again- Look at the 'Muhammad cartoon protest' that was held in Trafalgar Square earlier this year -Even though death threats openly made on placards carrying slogans such "behead thise who insult Islam' ' Europe's 9/11 is on it's way' - the police did absolutely nothing.

The only way we're going to rid this country of the Islamic terrorist threat is -
1)Stop all further immigration/asylum seeking from muslim countries.

2)Bring back our troops from the Gulf - these are our soldiers, they should be defending Britain and securing our borders - not fighting an illegal war for American oil interests.

3)Crush any British based hardline Islamic group and deport any cleric of follower of radical Islam.

I recognize that many muslims living in Britain are peaceful and law- abiding but there's no getting away from the fact that Islam as a faith, is hardline by it's very nature.
What we need right now is an open, honest debate about the Islamic faith itself - yet the government and the media are too afraid to do this.

Now I am with you on immigration red squirrell I think the problem is that the individual is powerless to stop the influx of both illegal immugrants and asylum seekers. I think that even in Shropshire itself people are dismayed by Polish people taking local jobs and I often wonder when I go into some Kebab shops in Shrewsbury how many people in there are legally entiltled to be working there. Its not directly involved in the thread but I feel with other 'european' countries joining the eec that we will have even more of a influx to our little island, then what will happen?

Brace yourself Andy - we'll have X amount of Bulgarians heading our way in less than two years time. Bulgaria is probably the most crime-ridden and corrupt country in Europe.
When our cities are already overflowing with foreign criminals (pick-pockets, pimps, beggars etc ) this is absolute madness.

Getting back to the thread's topic - I believe that this government should be working on an exit strategy for our troops in Iraq. It's Britain's borders that need defending.

Hear hear Squirrel.

Another British squaddie killed in Iraq - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/6032879.stm
How much more of Blair's"blood price" must we pay to Bush and his 'neo-con' puppetmasters?
Bring our lads home now!

what do yuo think armys are for red|?

Andy, I'd like to think that the British Army's main purpose was safeguarding British interests.
British soldiers shouldn't be dying in an illegal war for American oil interests.
As for the 'War on terror' that we've heard so much about in recent years - Surely that should have begun in places such as Bradford and East London? It wasn't Saddam Hussien's Republican Guard that carried out 9/11 or 7/7.

Im going to get my two pence worth in here because Im a little peeved at your comments about our soldiers Andy!

I totally agree with redsquirrel that although our troops are paid for the dangerous job they do and yes, they signed up for it in the first place, they certainly have no choice in where they are sent to fight whether they agree with it or not.

This subject is a little close to home for me, my 20 year old brother has been in Basra for the last 7 months, have you any family or friends fighting a war for another country Andy?
The way things are going my brother may be called out to Afghanistan before long although I pray he doesnt. Ive never agreed with the war even before my brother was posted but to have the attitude that they signed up for the army and get paid for it so thats there own fault I feel is a bit ignorant.
These soldiers signed up believing they may one day have to fight for there OWN country not for our PM to jump on Bushes bandwagon and put them in serious danger for another country.
Perhaps thats naive of me but thats my opinion. Would Blair have felt the same if members of his family had to go and fight over there - I think not.

On the immigration subject, I have made my views quite clear on another thread here but we have a big problem in Welshpool with Polish. The problem being that there are now no jobs for local people, the doctors surgery, dentists, housing, and most public ammenities are not well equipped for the numbers of people living in Welshpool now. I just feel like local people are being forced out because so many foriegners have moved here, its not as if its a big town, Welshpool is quite small compared to Newtown or Oswestry. The goverment need to get a grip on the whole situation and quickly.

Sorry Willow you have a personal issue here with youre brother.

My father spent his career in the army for 25 years, he fought for 1 para in europe in the second world war, then india, the suez conflict and served 6 years in northern ireland. He fought for his country abroad. Cant see what all the fuss is about. I didnt join the army through choice. Your brother did.

Yes my brother did join the army through choice but as I said earlier most recruits join up to defend there own country not someone elses.

You probably cant see what the fuss is about because your father came out of it, I just feel you are insensitive with the fact that our troops are dying over there and for what reason?

Im not arguing the fact that these soldiers sign up for it in the first place, Im miffed because some of your comments seem to shrug off the fact that these men and women alot being teenagers are in the middle of a war zone risking thier lives for nothing in my opinion.

I feel these soldiers need applauding and deserve respect for there bravery to sign up in the first place and to want to fight for thier country thats all.

I also feel that the British Army is one of the best in the world Willow. I respect thier task is a very big one, before the thatcher(lowercase't' through lack of respect) years the British Army had not seen hand to hand combat probably since Suez. I do not applaud this government or the american government for the part they play in these wars either 'Kicking the door in' in anybodys country is I believe wrong. My Son is a fighter pilot in the RAF and is involved in surveillance all over the world. I worry about him as you do your brother, but we have discussed and accept the dangers he has put himself in. I am told by journalists i work with,yet he cant tell me currently, the RAF may be used in Afghanistan to support the British Army. I am proud of this but its a job to him he could leave if he wanted to but he enjoys it. If your anxious about your I suggest you persuade him he gets out of the British Army

I was under the impression the British Army was there as a 'worldwide force' to stem terrorism in the world. So if the terrorism was here in the uk, which it is then is it 'okay' for you brother to be defending his country indirectly by hitting terrorism at its source?

I have had the privelage to report on stories worldwide and can tell you on a personal scale in some Armys in the world conscript children as young as 13 to their forces. If it was conscription in the British Army I think that more people would protest. I also think Blair is about to meet his match in some kind of military mutiny

Even the head of the British Army wants Blair to pull out of Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6046332.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...c=NEWS&ct=5

Unfortunately when you sign up for the armed forces you are putting your life in the hands of politicians, recruits should understand that before they join.

If you are a 'my country right or wrong' type then I assume that's no problem but if you are only willing to fight for causes you consider good and worthwhile then this would be a good reason not to join up.

Joining 'to defend one's country' is very laudable but looking at recent history, no operations since WWII have been concerned with protecting the British mainland and only the Falklands conflict could really be said to be protecting a willing colony.

All other operations have been for geo-political and strategic reasons where we have not been under direct threat, colonial rearguard actions to defend empire against unwilling natives or peacekeeping type operations trying to sort out other people's conflicts.

First of all theses views are mine not my brothers, so to suggest that I "persuade" him to leave because of my feelings is a bit stupid. I would never suggest he leave the army to him, he has worked hard to get to where he is and sacrificed alot to do it believe me.
He enjoys his job, his views on this would probably be alot different to mine but as hes not here I dont know.
Ill be sure to ask him when he comes home in a few weeks and get a different angle to the discussion just out of interest.