Action against Islamists in Iraq.

For some time the posts over at Bridge Ward News have been, well, shall we say, interesting. But James’ latest post here mostly, makes a lot of sense.

James Spencer says

If we get involved in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria then it may be the first just war that we’ve fought since the Falklands.

The overused term “the next Hitler” really does seem appropriate when a group cuts babies in half and buries women alive due to the religion they were born in.

Unlike the economic chancers and political malcontents who often claim political assylum in our country, these communities really don’t seem to have anywhere else to go. However our political class (including church leaders) have totally lost the trust of the electorate on this, so letting the victims in will be a tough sell.

And more than that it is our responsibility because we broke it by invading Iraq and destabilising Syria. Our political class is already indirectly responsible for genocide, if it does nothing it will be directly responsible.

What the third paragraph is about I don’t know but the rest is mostly correct.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto’s adventure in Iraq is the direct course of the present barbarity. The fact that the only objective Bush and Blair had was toppling Sadaam Hussain and there was no objective to keep the country stable has lead to a weak government that is powerless to stop the onslaught.

Any action we take in Iraq now should have clear objectives. The main objective being the absolute destruction of IS formally called ISIS. I would support any action be it humanitarian or military by Great Britain, including the deployment of ground forces.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Action against Islamists in Iraq.

  1. Ben Redsell says:

    Are you suggesting that the failure of the West to take action in Syria before ISIS became the main opposition there, an organisation so extreme that even AQ refuse to be associated with it, has nothing to do with its rise to power? Are you suggesting that the Arab Spring would never have happened in Iraq had Saddam not been deposed? Are you suggesting that United Nations resolutions (like 1441) should never be enforced?

    The invasion of Iraq had many faults, but it was the right thing to do. It was the failure to win the peace, and the disastrous decision by Don Rumsfeld to sack the Iraqi army, that led to the failures in Iraq.

  2. Ben Redsell says:

    Kevin, that’s a ridiculous statement to make in argument. Hindsight is 20/20 but NOBODY was saying this before the invasion. Hans Blix said there were WMDs. Charles Kennedy said there were WMDs and that with a second resolution the invasion would be legal. The French said there were WMDs but that they would veto a second resolution because of their own commercial interests in sanction breaking.

    Nobody knew that we wouldn’t find WMDs.

    Not only that but I would argue there WERE WMDs, and that we’ve only just got rid of them by taking them out of Syria, who did actually USE them. Saddam gave them away. Or they are buried in the desert somewhere. We KNOW he had them because we sold them to him.

    Don’t forget, by the way, that Libya gave up their own WMDs and nuclear programme, which was far more advanced than anyone had guessed, in direct response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You can’t look at International Relations on a country by country basis as though the two things have no direct correlation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s