And…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229254[/ATTACH]

I know what you’re after…;o)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229252[/ATTACH]

Look, if you really must kip here please can you tidy up a little. And if you find any pizza in those boxes…;o)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229325[/ATTACH]

And some fish heads, maybe?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229291[/ATTACH]

Oooh yummy(!)

Or maybe a rich tea biscuit?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229289[/ATTACH]

Why must you nit-pick so much? I think you know what I meant; I have little enough time to post here without getting picked-up on the language I use, never mind my argument!

That was pretty much the argument I tried with one of my teachers at school. I knew what I meant…

Surely America didn’t rule after 2003 either; just occupied Iraq (as Britain did in 1941 and before)?

Who handed out the contracts? Who made the appointments? Who supplied/financed the military? Who forbade companies from other nations from bidding for work contracts? Who were Paul Bremer and John Negroponte and what exactly were their roles? Did the Iraqi government have any real authority until relatively recently?

You say Saddam Hussein’s control of Iraq was ‘not too bad’ for some Iraqis; I agree, but it was also very, very bad for lots of Iraqis, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians.

Think I said something similar. My implication was that compared to, say, the Nazis, the nastiness was confined mostly to Saddam’s many enemies; whereas Jews in other Arab countries were driven out (if they weren’t imprisoned/slaughtered) the Iraqi Jews were left alone.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT SADDAM WAS A NICE GUY.
He was a complete and utter busted to anyone who caught his eye but, unlike in the post war period, the usual amenities worked 24/7, 365, etc.

Take the use of chemical-weapons against Kurdish civilians; could the world really stand-by and say that that could be overlooked as the act of removing Saddam Hussein would probably end up worse?

No, but since Saddam was not challenged with any real authority about it it can’t really figure. Now, the invasion of a sovereign state like Kuwait on the other hand…

Chemical-weapons have again been used against civilians by a dictator in Syria; shall we overlook that (well, we have done really) because the alternative will probably be worse?

As you said, we have. But, generously, Blair has stood up and taken the lead by holding meetings to discuss the matter internationally, rallying world governments and public opinion, and laying down the law against the Syrian government by bringing in all the international forces at his disposal to do something about it.
Oops, sorry! He actually gave a few seminars, charging attendees mega bucks for the privilege of hearing him spout forth about how the Arabs persecute Israel, and went on a holiday or two. Or three.

My mistake.

Who played a part in the race to sell chemicals to Iraq? We all know the part played by certain British arms manufacturers in things like the supergun, for example.
(Clue: Germany supplied 52% of all Iraq’s chemical weaponry equipment, but the UK overlooked the possibility that a UK supplied chlorine plant would be used to produce mustard gas, even backing it with financial guarantees by the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department! Other stuff came from France, America, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, China, Spain, and even Luxembourg. How embarrassing is it for all these countries to be reminded again that they played a major role in the death of so many Kurds at Helabja, for example, not forgetting that 5% of all Iranian casualties in the Iran Iraq war were to chemical weapons? Did you know that only one foreigner, Dutchman Frans van Anraat, has been prosecuted for his part in supplying the chemicals required, getting 17 years for complicity in multiple war crimes? This might go some way in explaining why Tony Blair is still roaming the world freely…)

Why are we so bothered about ISIS now if the body-count is low by Saddam Hussein’s standards and they are only conducting the same sort of sectarian blood-letting that was common in Iraq pre-2003?

Maybe because we are feeling guilty because, despite our feelings about being lied to as justification, we are all a part of the unwanted invasion of Iraq since it was our armies? Some of the men gunned down were possibly tainted by association with westerners, maybe? Maybe because we have, as a nation, invested much time, energy and money in Iraq and feel a little let down that it has gone belly up so quickly – a little like South Vietnam losing interest after the US pulled out?

…let Kurds, Sunnis and Shias live at peace in separate nation states…

You going to tell ISIS to take their foot off the accelerator now, just when they’ve got going?

Let Blair do it. In person. Under the glare of his brightly false, artificial grin and fake tan maybe they’ll know they are beaten and throw in the towel.

Nobody will ever surrender again? Maybe, but at the moment the problem is that nobody wants to fight ISIS either; the equivalent of three, fully-equipped, Coalition-trained Iraqi divisions just stripped-off their uniforms and ran for their lives leaving every piece of equipment and all their ammunition for ISIS.

Yep, just like South Vietnam. Notice the similarity – both countries supported and supplied by the US, who upped and left, then stuff happens and (just like a row of dominoes) the whole lots starts toppling over one after another.
Did we leave too early, or was there just not the interest in their own future for the military to defend their regime? Is the military up to the task – I mean does it have the support structure in place, not just to keep the front line supplied but to support the troops: the offensive capability (to me, anyway) appears to be some what lacking, some light attack/training aircraft (which may or may not have an attack capability) and some attack helicopters (Mil-24 variants, doubling as transports, and apparently Mil-28’s, although these may not have been ordered due to corruption in the process). Aircraft with offensive capability are on order or being delivered (F16s, for example) but that is about it. Take a look through the inventory for the army and you can see that the arms manufacturers must have been offering personal incentives to the buyers because there is all sorts of different armoured fighting vehicles from nine different nationalities (including Brazil, Pakistan, and South Africa, as well as the expected suspects!) and a vast range of small arms (from 16 different nations, although most are Eastern European). Can you imagine trying to maintain spares and ammunition for all those various weapons?

The ISIS campaign is one of pure terror. It would be possible to bomb their supply-lines, if they had any, but ISIS fighters can just take whatever water, food, fuel and ammunition they need from local sources and they would ‘execute’ anybody who stands in the way; as it is the will of (their) god!

…And pick up a new weapon from the site of a battle that never took place…?

Anyway, how do you stop crates of ammunition being moved in a school-bus full of orphans with a drone-strike? You can’t; not unless you accept killing lots of innocent civilians too. The result would be international condemnation and the risk of ‘retaliation’ with suicide-bombings on British streets.

Wimp! Think of all those wedding celebrations that were hit by drone strikes… The fear of hitting innocents never deterred the US from going for it, and ignoring any condemnation!

The only way to stop ISIS is, up-close and personal, with ground-troops and I don’t see anybody wanting that job except the untrained volunteer militia from the other side of the sectarian divide.

Then they win.

Maybe ‘saint’ Tony will have a word with them, put them right, give them a third way.

For what reason would Saudi Arabia back ISIS?

I suppose, if I were cynical, I would say it had something to do with the supply and therefore, the price, of oil. I do not know if there is any ideological connection between ISIS and any backers that they may have in Saudi Arabia but can this much suffering just be about money!

Iraq’s mainly Shia-led government suspects Saudi’s Sunni rulers of involvement in ISIS operations. In a statement Iraq’s leaders said: “We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that – which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites.” Riyadh has denied the accusations.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-attacks-iraq-accuses-saudi-arabia-supporting-genocide-1453101

The Saudis were heavily involved with backing the Syrian opposition (as I said above), and since the Syrians now appear to be giving them a spanking might they be trying for a different homeland? I don’t know, but the Iraqis believe that the Saudis are involved and we all know how many Saudis took part in the 11/9 airliner attacks (ok, not figuratively, but I looked it up: 15 out of 19)