Britain's Post-WWI Role in Iraq Recalled [History of Irak]

AP ^ | 3/6/2003 | BARRY RENFREW

[Burkeman1]

When Clinton bombed Kosovo for 78 days- there were protests all over Europe that rivaled or surpassed the protests against Bush now. Were they covered in our press? No! In fact- Clinton's Kosovo bombing campaign was the De Facto end of Nato. It was an embarassment and a shame on this nation that Europe never forgot. And Bush is paying the price now.

[Spruce]

I do not believe America is now walking a path of destruction. For many years our country actively chose to not only ignore the grand game we are in, they thought it was over. Our current leaders not only know the game, they are playing it well.

[alaskanfan]

invest a whole bunch in a missle defense program for the borders of the US

Could you explain the use of a missle defense program against someone armed with boxcutters?

How would it stop someone armed with a vial of smallpox?

It's a different game my friend. I agree with much of what you say, however I do not think that we can isolate ourselves from people that want to kill us just because we represent a lifestyle that they oppose on a religious basis.

I do not agree with everything that President Bush does, but I do believe we need to shut down that terrorist shopping mall in Iraq.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps.

But I think the further we involve ourselves in the Mid East (and they are insane and not ready for democracy of any sort) the further we sink more lives, treasure, and resources of our Country.

[Burkeman1]

Could you explain the use of a missle defense program against someone armed with boxcutters?

You just made my point! Thank you! Bush was all about WMD the other night and the WTC was brought down by box cutters and yet we are going to fight a "war against terrorism"! What the heck does Iraq have to do with the box cutters that took 3000 American lives? Anything?

Did Sadaam buy the box cutters for a buck a piece? We still let in hundreds of Islamic immigrants every day in this country. Even more pass through Mexico and yet Bush does nothing? NOt one of 9/11 was from Iraq. If Iraq does have chemical or bio weapons (and I belive they do) why wouldnt Sadaam pass them on this week to Al QUeda since he knows we are coming for him? ANd if he does and 100,000 die say in Boston will you say Bush was wrong?

[Spruce]

Agreed. But this nest of Vipers needs to be taken care of. It has festered long enough. And at the same time we are learning much about our "allies".

[Burkeman1]

We are an idealistic people and have always been. We need to grow up and take care of our needs like France and Germany are doing now. They oppose our action against Iraq because we will be seated on the second largest oil reserve in the world. Even if they joined us in this action we would still dominate and call the shots in Iraq. They know this. And we know this. That is why Bush never answered those questions directly the other night. THis is big- if we go to war against Iraq we are alone in the world save for some paltry allies and the rest of the world will be against us in a cold war fashion.

[alaskanfan]

You just made my point! Thank you!

I fail to see how I have "made your point," but if you say so, you're welcome.

I don't believe we should wait until Sadaam sells some of these WMDs to some terrorist fruitcake to use against us. If he is unwilling to destroy these weapons, we should assist him.

I believe we should shut down our borders and stop this flow of illegals into our country.

[Spruce]

I would hardly call Great Britain or Spain "paltry". The world is going to be changed more than the Fall of the Wall. Major pieces are being moved and the Franco-German-Russia gambit has been slain. It is up to America to decide how "honorably" we allow them to walk away. I say grind them and let them play the fool longer.

[Burkeman1]

I don't believe we should wait until Sadaam sells some of these WMDs to some terrorist fruitcake to use against us. If he is unwilling to destroy these weapons, we should assist him.

And when we say we will settle for nothing less than his death or regime change why wouldn't he sell or even just give WMD to Al Queda? What does he have to lose? In fact- Once Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil" why not increase the pace of nuke development in all those countries? What do they have to lose since the US anounced under Clinton (and never revoked under Bush) the right to intervene anywhere at anytime.

My family has not had a participant in war since WWI- (my Grandfather- yes he was 54 when my dad was born) and my dad was in military "intelligence"- quotation marks are his as he hated it. But lets ponder this venture fellow freepers. Ponder it. Estrada is far more important in the long run than this war.

[Consort]

Circa 1920

1924 - 1958

1959 - 1963

1963 - 1991

Current

[Burkeman1]

Spain has been nothing since 1898 and Britain since the end of WWII (They hang with us out of culture and politics). France is nothing alone. Germany is nothing alone. Russia is nothing alone. But all three together and with China (Russia is building gas and oil pipelines to China and Japan right now) may give us a shock in the next 20 years.

[alaskanfan]

And when we say we will settle for nothing less than his death or regime change why wouldn't he sell or even just give WMD to Al Queda? What does he have to lose?

Simple answer, his life. If he would just choose to walk away, he could remain wealthy and alive. This war, if it comes, will not be our choice but Sadaams.

If you believe for one second that if we ignore him and act like nothing is going on, he will never come after us, you are deceiving yourself.

Should we just ignore the fact that he has violated the terms of his surrender? Are you willing to pass this problem on to the next administration like Clinton did? Are you willing to pass it on to to the next generation when perhaps the weapons Iraq has will be further developed and more sophiscated? When do you believe we should take care of this threat?

[ChuckHam]

GWII is a liar on foreign policy as is his entire foreign policy staff.

Are you going to continue to run from this statement? Several of us would like for you to back up your remark with facts or admit you slandered the president.

[Burkeman1]

The President mentioned 9/11 about 15 times in his last speech and did not even attempt to connect Iraq to that event. Bush says this is about WMDs that Iraq has. Yet he said North Korea was a "regional issue" in the same speech and they have NUKES! If you think we are going to war against Iraq because they pose a real threat to us then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, Nato, and the Arab League was with us during the first Gulf War! They are not now. Why? Because they are "Cheese eating surrender monkies" and cowards like the Neocon press says? Or because this proposed war is just the first in a long series of wars? Will Syria be the next "Hitler" we must depose and occupy? Or will it be Iran? This adminstration is lying about this upcoming war and the future wars they have planned.

[u-89]

This adminstration is lying about this upcoming war and the future wars they have planned.

Stratfor reported last week that Bush would rather be seen as attacking Iraq without just cause than to publicly admit his long term plans i.e. regime change in the entire Arab world and a long occupation of Arab lands. I agree with that assessment.

The above article about the British historical presence in Iraq doesn't mention it but I seem to recall reading that the British used poison gas against the Kurds in the 1930's. Your a history reader, do you recall that? I do not think I am dreaming it.

[Burkeman1]

I am a history reader but I have never heard of the British using gas in their colonial possessions.

[u-89]

To clarify that last part of my post the article says the British only thought of using gas but I remember reading where it was actually used. Of course in light of today's excuses for attacking Iraq it wouldn't be prudent to admit that (if it is true).

[u-89]

I will have to research that then since you do not know and I am not sure.

[Burkeman1]

I have no knowledge of any chemical weapon being used by the British (or any other Western colonial power save for the Soviets in Ukraine and in Laos.)