The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => The Commons => Topic started by: Barman on June 11, 2014, 05:47:15 AM
-
Insurgents seized control of most of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Tuesday in a powerful demonstration of the threat posed by a rapidly expanding extremist army to the fragile stability of Iraq and the wider region.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda offshoot, overran the western bank of the city overnight after U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers and police officers abandoned their posts, in some instances discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the militants.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also fled the surprise onslaught, which exposed the inadequacies of Iraq’s security forces, risked aggravating the country’s already fraught sectarian divide and enabled the extremists to capture large quantities of weaponry, much of it American.
Clicky... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html)
A priest writes...
Bad news. I write you in a situation of violence in Mosul that is very critical and even apocalyptic. Most of the inhabitants of the city have already abandoned their houses and fled into the villages and are sleeping in the open without anything to eat or drink. Many thousands of armed men from the Islamic Groups of Da’ash have attacked the city of Mosul for the last two days. They have assassinated adults and children. The bodies have been left in the streets and in the houses by the hundreds, without pity. The regular forces and the army have also fled the city, along with the governor. In the mosques, they cry “Allah Akbar, long live the Islamic State.” Qaraqosh is overflowing with refugees of all kinds, without food or lodging. The check points and the Kurdish forces are blocking innumerable refugees from entering Kurdistan. What we are living and what we have seen over the last two days is horrible and catastrophic. The priory of Mar Behnam and other churches fell into the hands of the rebels this morning. . . . and now they have come here and entered Qaraqosh five minutes ago, and we are now surrounded and threatened with death. . . . pray for us. I’m sorry that I can’t continue . . . They are not far from our convent. . . .Don’t reply. . . .
This is surely a taste of things to come when we finally pull out of Afghanistan too...
All those young lives and billions of Pounds wasted for what...? Shrugs:
-
Banonkers isn't it ...that they ever thought it would achieve stability and harmony among the various factions over there noooo:
-
Indeed.... noooo:
As of 23 December 2013 there has been a total of 447 fatalities of British Forces personnel including Ministry of Defence (MoD) civilians. The vast majority of fatalities have taken place since the redeployment of British forces to the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province, as prior to deployment in this area only five men died between April 2002 and early March 2006.
In all, 403 of the fatalities are classed as killed "as a result of hostile action" and 43 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation. The Army has seen the heaviest losses, with 362 fatalities as of 1 May 2013. Typically those killed were aged between 20 and 29 and the biggest losses seen in 2009 and 2010. Of those killed, 439 were male and three were female.
For the period 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2013 centrally available records show that:
2,116 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals and categorised as Wounded in Action, including as a result of hostile action.
4,529 UK military and civilian personnel were admitted to UK Field Hospitals for disease or non-battle injuries.
293 UK personnel were categorised as Very Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
298 UK personnel were categorised as Seriously Injured from all causes excluding disease.
6,663 UK personnel were aeromedically evacuated from Afghanistan on medical grounds, for whatever reason.
In February 2010, the British death toll in Afghanistan exceeded that of the Falklands War.
I wonder how long it will be before Helmand is back in the hands of the Taliban...?
-
Would that make it one of them there full circles then noooo:
-
Would that make it one of them there full circles then noooo:
Not for the boys that died out there.... noooo:
-
If only Iraq didn't have any oil.
As for Afghanistan, no point at all.
If we just made some drones that spray weedkiller on the poppy fields, they can have the rest. noooo:
-
The winding road to hell is paved with good intentions
The fast track highway is full of people looking the other way
There are no easy options
-
If only Iraq didn't have any oil.
As for Afghanistan, no point at all.
If we just made some drones that spray weedkiller on the poppy fields, they can have the rest. noooo:
It could be a huge coincidence but doesn't Halliburton have a pipeline running through northern Afghanistan? rubschin:
-
Isn't that a rather long way from Mosul?
______________________________
Your local friendly tapatalking heretic
-
Isn't that a rather long way from Mosul?
Not that far as the drone flies.
-
Isn't that a rather long way from Mosul?
Not that far as the drone flies.
drumroll: lol:
-
And now Tony has waded in to declare that his actions in the 2003 invasion have in no way led to the current situation. Banghead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832)
I've been trying to comment about this for the last hour or so but can't come up with anything that would do this steaming pile of bullshit justice. I do have a suggestion though, why not offer to hand Blair over to the Isis leadership if they pull out of Iraq. After all if it is true that he has nothing to do with the meltdown in Iraq then he will be perfectly safe and will be in the idea position to carry out his role as Peace Envoy.
-
And now Tony has waded in to declare that his actions in the 2003 invasion have in no way led to the current situation. Banghead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27852832)
I've been trying to comment about this for the last hour or so but can't come up with anything that would do this steaming pile of bullshit justice. I do have a suggestion though, why not offer to hand Blair over to the Isis leadership if they pull out of Iraq. After all if it is true that he has nothing to do with the meltdown in Iraq then he will be perfectly safe and will be in the idea position to carry out his role as Peace Envoy.
Well yes, you would say that wouldn't you Tony.... You useless, lying duplicitous cunt! cussing:
-
Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/ (http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/)
"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"
No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.
The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.
-
Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/ (http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/)
"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"
No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.
The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.
happ096
Well said.... best thing we could do (then and now) is let the savages fight it out...
...see also: Africa.
-
Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/ (http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/)
"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"
No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.
The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.
happ096
Well said.... best thing we could do (then and now) is let the savages fight it out...
...see also: Africa.
Actually there was a plan but the US rewrote it within weeks of the fall of Hussein insisting that the UN have a minor role.
Whatever the intention, that change by the USA was a complete disaster
As for "letting the savages fight it out" that worked so well in Afghanistan pre 2001 didn't it. How many UK dead in 9/11?
-
Out of curiosity I had a look at the full text on his website....
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/ (http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/iraq-syria-and-the-middle-east-an-essay-by-tony-blair/)
"I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully"
No you speak with forked tongue you lying bastard, your actions with regards to Iraq had fuck all do to with the aftermath of 9/11 and you damn well know it. If it had been a purely knee jerk reaction to the terror attack then you wouldn't have gone through all the machiavellian maneuvers in order to justify the invasion in the first place. Don't think any of us have forgotten the instructions to 'sex up' the WMD risk or the 45 minute claim.
The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.
A shame you didn't come to that conclusion when you were planning the invasion. Neither you or Dubya gave ANY consideration to what would happen in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power, what little planning you had for setting up a new government could have been put together by a half witted 5 year old. Anyone looking at the history of Iraq would have been able to see that the tensions between the Sunni and Shia muslims would have ended up in violence without anyone strong and ruthless enough to keep it from boiling over. But no, at best you probably saw parallels between Iraq and the sectarian violence in Ireland and decided that the 'tried and tested' approach would work. At worst you were too busy with the dollar signs in your eyes to give a toss about the consequences of your actions.
happ096
Well said.... best thing we could do (then and now) is let the savages fight it out...
...see also: Africa.
Actually there was a plan but the US rewrote it within weeks of the fall of Hussein insisting that the UN have a minor role.
Whatever the intention, that change by the USA was a complete disaster
As for "letting the savages fight it out" that worked so well in Afghanistan pre 2001 didn't it. How many UK dead in 9/11?
So, you think 9/11 was caused by lack of intervention...?
... like if we'd gone in (and pointlessly fought the Taliban for ten years at the cost of billions and hundreds of lives only to let them walk back in when we leave) before 9/11 it would never have happened and we would have all lived happily ever after...?
-
Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.
So looking the other way is no cake walk either.
-
Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.
So looking the other way is no cake walk either.
No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...
...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...
Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?
-
Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.
So looking the other way is no cake walk either.
No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...
...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...
Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?
Where did you get that £37B on Afghanistan figure from? Doesn't ring true from what I recall
Anyway I'm not saying everything we've done is smart or even right. For example we've been far too willing to fold in under the USA and not publicly criticise their tendency to bomb wedding parties.
But no one should think doing nothing is some easy option. 9/11 wasn't planned as a one off by Al Qaeda was it, Hussein is known to have been planning to have his WMD back as soon as sanctions stopped. By now they could have been in the hands of anybody as his stock control was also something less than acceptable and that's IF he was still around
-
Just pointing out that we did nothing up to 2001 and more Brits died in 9/11 than in the London bombings in 2005.
So looking the other way is no cake walk either.
No, but we've lost 450+ soldiers, spent billions of Pounds and when we pull out it will return within a very short time to where it was before...
...so I'd argue that we should leave them to it and protect our own borders with the cash we've pissed away...
Isn't it bizarre that we're slashing the armed forces to save cash while spending £37B+ on a pointless, unwinnable war in Afghanistan...?
Where did you get that £37B on Afghanistan figure from? Doesn't ring true from what I recall
Anyway I'm not saying everything we've done is smart or even right. For example we've been far too willing to fold in under the USA and not publicly criticise their tendency to bomb wedding parties.
But no one should think doing nothing is some easy option. 9/11 wasn't planned as a one off by Al Qaeda was it, Hussein is known to have been planning to have his WMD back as soon as sanctions stopped. By now they could have been in the hands of anybody as his stock control was also something less than acceptable and that's IF he was still around
So, where else would you intervene just in case like...? Iran perhaps...?
-
Iran hasn't attacked us, yet.
There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq
So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran
-
Iran hasn't attacked us, yet.
There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq
So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran
Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan ..... rubschin:
-
Iran hasn't attacked us, yet.
There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq
So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran
Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan ..... rubschin:
Yes it attacked Iran, then Kuwait, then Saudi and then Israel and then threatened to do the same again
-
Iran hasn't attacked us, yet.
There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq
So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran
Iraq didn't attack us either....
-
Iran hasn't attacked us, yet.
There is no UN security council res calling on all nations to use all means to remove their threat - but there was with Iraq
So for now sanctions has been the right course of action for Iran
Did Iraq attack anyone or Afghanistan ..... rubschin:
Yes it attacked Iran, then Kuwait, then Saudi and then Israel and then threatened to do the same again
Ok but how does that affect the UK ......the sand wogs will always kill each other.......
personally I would prefer a dictator in charge rather than civil war......
(and the Kuwait thing is not so straight forward ..they owed those oil fields )
-
Nah. There was an ole field that straddled the border, Iraq accused Kuwait of slant drilling but there was little evidence. Iraq said send us money or we'll invade. Kuwait offered some money and Iraq invaded
How does it affect us? First they came for the Kuwaitis . . . . .
-
Couldn't have put it better myself...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html)
-
Couldn't have put it better myself...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html)
Excellent!
A good put down of Blair.... and Steve...
-
Couldn't have put it better myself...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html)
Excellent!
A good put down of Blair.... and Steve...
Well perhaps you could quote what I have posted that he puts down then
______________________________
Your local friendly tapatalking heretic
-
Couldn't have put it better myself...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658644/Blairs-bizarre-claims-reality-One-Britains-distinguished-generals-says-former-PM-complete-denial.html)
Excellent!
A good put down of Blair.... and Steve...
Well perhaps you could quote what I have posted that he puts down then
______________________________
Your local friendly tapatalking heretic
Oh my bad then...
... I thought the whole thing was arguing against intervention...?
I'll have to read it again...
-
Ta
Blair doesn't understand what a pariah he is. While a lot of the public allegations against him don't hold water, he made stupid deals with Bush, did not do his job and challenge reports and has never apologised for the result.
But that war was inevitable at some time and Rose is wrong with his "no trace of chemical weapons" by the ISG. They actually found a few but not in any substantial quantity and almost certainly not known of by Hussein.
-
You'll like this one
"I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help."
http://news.sky.com/story/1282999/boris-tells-blair-put-a-sock-in-it-over-iraq (http://news.sky.com/story/1282999/boris-tells-blair-put-a-sock-in-it-over-iraq)
worthy:
-
Ta
Blair doesn't understand what a pariah he is. While a lot of the public allegations against him don't hold water, he made stupid deals with Bush, did not do his job and challenge reports and has never apologised for the result.
But that war was inevitable at some time and Rose is wrong with his "no trace of chemical weapons" by the ISG. They actually found a few but not in any substantial quantity and almost certainly not known of by Hussein.
Oh shit!
I forgot the [sarc] [/sarc] tags..... redface:
-
I mourn the death of the Commons
-
You'll like this one
"I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help."
http://news.sky.com/story/1282999/boris-tells-blair-put-a-sock-in-it-over-iraq (http://news.sky.com/story/1282999/boris-tells-blair-put-a-sock-in-it-over-iraq)
worthy:
lol: lol: Thumbs:
-
And the backlash against Tony continues, with more joining the call to remove him from his middle east peace envoy post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666213/Blair-growing-pressure-stand-Middle-East-peace-envoy-diplomats-demand-removal.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666213/Blair-growing-pressure-stand-Middle-East-peace-envoy-diplomats-demand-removal.html)
Just added my name to the petition although it took me a while to come up with a reason that I could use in polite company, something told me that if I cut and paste what I had written on here previously it wouldn't have gone down too well. (yes I know it was optional but I hope they are also read).
Because I believe that Blair is a consummate liar with no morals who deceived the public about the reasons to invade Iraq for his own gain, directly leading to the current situation. And as such is the worst choice to be a peace envoy
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ban-ki-moon-sack-tony-blair-as-the-middle-east-peace-envoy (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ban-ki-moon-sack-tony-blair-as-the-middle-east-peace-envoy)
Only 359 signatures to go folks.... :thumbsup:
-
And the backlash against Tony continues, with more joining the call to remove him from his middle east peace envoy post.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666213/Blair-growing-pressure-stand-Middle-East-peace-envoy-diplomats-demand-removal.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666213/Blair-growing-pressure-stand-Middle-East-peace-envoy-diplomats-demand-removal.html)
Just added my name to the petition although it took me a while to come up with a reason that I could use in polite company, something told me that if I cut and paste what I had written on here previously it wouldn't have gone down too well. (yes I know it was optional but I hope they are also read).
Because I believe that Blair is a consummate liar with no morals who deceived the public about the reasons to invade Iraq for his own gain, directly leading to the current situation. And as such is the worst choice to be a peace envoy
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ban-ki-moon-sack-tony-blair-as-the-middle-east-peace-envoy (http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ban-ki-moon-sack-tony-blair-as-the-middle-east-peace-envoy)
Only 359 signatures to go folks.... :thumbsup:
It says 2,095 needed now.... rubschin:
-
Someone seems to be moving the goalposts, the target was only 5000 when I signed it last night. Although I figured 10k would have been more realistic rubschin:
-
Someone seems to be moving the goalposts, the target was only 5000 when I signed it last night. Although I figured 10k would have been more realistic rubschin:
Oh I see, I wondered if nick had signed-up and gubberated it.... whistle: