What do al-quieda actually want?

[merlin]

To be fair, intervention is nothing more than a calculated gamble in most situations.

I think we sometimes forget that heads of state have to make a decision based on analysis of potential scenarios. In the case of Iraq, given the possible global affect of not enforcing the United Nations Disarmament Policy (yes i know saddam probably didn't have any WMD but the fact is that he was being seen to not cooperate by others), for me, you have to decide whether it is in the long term interest to make an example and insure that other so called rogue states take the non proliferation treaty seriously.

Additionally, you have to accept the potentially catastrophic impact on the world economy of oil shortages given the possible ousting of the House of Saud.

Your alternative is to sit back and let events take their course. Now intervention does have it's drawbacks, I fully accept that. But, the alternative scenario is desperately worrying for me and I really don't fancy taking the chance.

It is worth remembering that the Shiites have every reason to despise the American administration, regardless of how they suffered under Saddam. What is sad is that they now seem to be seeking retribution rather than reconciliation, indeed the whole area seems to be engulfed in a tit for tat struggle (has been since I was born) - with no thought given to improving relations.

With that in mind, I am amazed that so many feel that the problem could be solved without recourse to military action

 

[joel]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
McCann in particular seemed to be acutely aware of what would follow, and wrote about it very presciently at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.

Which is fair enough. Devlin, and no doubt McCann, understood far better than anyone in Whitehall the situation on the ground at the time. But I can't help thinking that by the 70s, the military wing of the IRA would have been reborn anyway. Baader Meinhoff and the various Red and Angry Brigades were the air du temps, after all. Pure speculation on my part, of course.
Even for those who consider the intervention in 69 to have been the right thing to do, it was in fact a lesser evil. "Non intervention" is clearly the optimal solution when and where feasible. However, if you are not a pacifist at least, some form of intervention is sometimes the least worst course of action. Implicit in this is the notion that, yes, bad things will happen etc.

Similar arguments are happening now in relation to Iraq, it's a shame they were so muted in the run-up to war.

I think those voices were somewhat drowned by all the anti war rhetoric at the time. But it is clear that Bush, Chaney and Blur didn't have a plan for the post war, and that is where my criticism of their actions lies. Iraqis are worse off now in many ways than they were a year ago. This is intolerable and untenable..

 

[tones]

Originally posted by julian2002
the fact that the situation at the time was referred to as 'the troubles' shows what a bunch of lying wankers the media are and also shows why i try to avoid the news and therefore being pumped full of government propaganda.
cheers


julian

To be fair, Julian, "The Troubles" is an old Irishism. The original "Troubles" followed the Easter Rising and was the name for the guerilla war fought between the original IRA, led by Michael Collins, and the RIC/British Army, later stiffened by British irregulars known as the "Black and Tans" (from their curious mixture of tan Britsh Army tunics and RIC black police trousers). It was the repression of the Tans, taking and executing of hostages, reprisal burnings and demolishings (not that different to Certain Middle Eastern Countries) that led the British Government, horrified at what was going on in its name, to call a halt and start the negotiations that led to Partition. It was therefore rather natural that the same name should attach itself to the (hopefully) just concluded round.