White Wash at Westminster

[DaveinGermany]

The main reason the Falklands was a "success" was that the political will was there, the people were behind it as part of the remaining "British Empire" was under threat & the Falklanders themselves wanted us there to defend them. Added to that our Armed forces & most of their equipment was equal to the job in hand, at the time (early 80's) there was about 330,000 service personnel in all 3 branches of the forces.

Compare that with the performance of the present day Armed forces which consists of about 240,000 (late 2009/10) lack of military hardware Armour/APC's & Airmobile equipment,overstretched in operational commitments. We are bogged down in a war not of our choosing but another Countries, the people aren't behind it "it's a far away Country & nothing to do with us", the politicians pay it lip service & say it's for our benefit ??? & the people certainly don't want us there, is there any wonder there is such a marked contrast, in results & feelings ???

[garinda]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

The main reason the Falklands was a "success" was that the political will was there, the people were behind it as part of the remaining "British Empire" was under threat & the Falklanders themselves wanted us there to defend them. Added to that our Armed forces & most of their equipment was equal to the job in hand, at the time (early 80's) there was about 330,000 service personnel in all 3 branches of the forces.

Compare that with the performance of the present day Armed forces which consists of about 240,000 (late 2009/10) lack of military hardware Armour/APC's & Airmobile equipment,overstretched in operational commitments. We are bogged down in a war not of our choosing but another Countries, the people aren't behind it "it's a far away Country & nothing to do with us", the politicians pay it lip service & say it's for our benefit ??? & the people certainly don't want us there, is there any wonder there is such a marked contrast, in results & feelings ???

99.99% of the British population didn't know of the existence of the Fakland Islands, prior it 1982.

Though a slighter higher figure would have heard of the Commonwealth island nation of Grenada, which was invaded by the good old U.S. of A., in 1983.

America saw the overthrow of Saddam as building another secure base in the oil rich Middle East. Blair the lap dog, flattered by Bush's courtship, meekly followed, knowing that there wasn't the intense and urgent threat caused by weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was evil, but no more so than your average megalomanical dictator, such as Muggabe. But of course Zimbabwe isn't quite as strategically well placed to major oil fields, as Iraq is.

Do I think there has been any major advancements brought about by the invasion of Iraq, weighed against the loss of blood of Britain's armed services?

No.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by garinda

99.99% of the British population didn't know of the existence of the Fakland Islands, prior it 1982.

That may well have been the case Rindy, but after the 2nd April 1982, they certainly did then, the fact that Johnny Foreigner should make such an affront to one of her Brittanic Majestys protectorates, certainly brought these tiny Islands to the focus & attention of the Great British public.

[Bernard Dawson]

Originally Posted by garinda

99.99% of the British population didn't know of the existence of the Fakland Islands, prior it 1982.

Though a slighter higher figure would have heard of the Commonwealth island nation of Grenada, which was invaded by the good old U.S. of A., in 1983.

America saw the overthrow of Saddam as building another secure base in the oil rich Middle East. Blair the lap dog, flattered by Bush's courtship, meekly followed, knowing that there wasn't the intense and urgent threat caused by weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was evil, but no more so than your average megalomanical dictator, such as Muggabe. But of course Zimbabwe isn't quite as strategically well placed to major oil fields, as Iraq is.

Do I think there has been any major advancements brought about by the invasion of Iraq, weighed against the loss of blood of Britain's armed services?

No.

What about all the other Countries that sent troops to Iraq. Where they just American lap dogs as well?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

What about all the other Countries that sent troops to Iraq. Where they just American lap dogs as well?

In the invasion of Iraq, besides the Americans (248,000) and the British troops (45,000), they were 'supported' by 2,000 Australians, and 193 Poles.

So if Blair was Bush's lap-dogs, the leaders of the lesser nations would be the runts of the sad and sorry litter.

The fact is the United Nations hadn't given up trying to secure a diplomatic solution in Iraq, and their weapons inspectors were only withdrawn, when it was clear America was ready to invade.

I'm afraid there is no way on God's Earth that you'll convince me that Blair went into this war for the right reasons, and that he didn't know the facts about the nonexistent weapons on mass destruction.

The whole thing is about the mega-money that comes from oil, and the vanity of Blair, wooed by the half-witted President Bush.

As you once said you were in favour of the E.E.C., from an idealist's point of common fraternity, I'd rather have hoped you might have supported the ideals of the United Nations, given it's historical significance, rather than an ex-alcholoic Texan dim-wit, and his subserviant lackey.

[Stumped]

Originally Posted by Neil

How do you work that out. The Falklands was a success, Iraq is a mess and possibly always will be.

I still think we should have threatened Argentina with Nukes if they did not withdraw. Why have them if they are no use to us?

The latest from the Falklands is that huge oil deposits have been discovered there! The petrol companies are vying for licences to explore at this very moment in time.

[MargaretR]

Since you mentioned oil - there are unexploited oil fields in Tahiti, and one particularly large one under Sun City, and a natural deep water harbour adjacent.
How convenient that the US military were on excercises in the area when disaster struck

[Stumped]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Since you mentioned oil - there are unexploited oil fields in Tahiti, and one particularly large one under Sun City, and a natural deep water harbour adjacent.
How convenient that the US military were on excercises in the area when disaster struck

In the past religion has been one of the major causes of war. Seems like oil is fast becoming the modern day religion!

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Stumped

In the past religion has been one of the major causes of war. Seems like oil is fast becoming the modern day religion!

....and weather control is a new means of war

[Less]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

....and weather control is a new means of war

Sorry Margaret, I didn't realise the thermostat for my central heating was turned up that high!

Or is this yet more of your bull shine without brains conspiracy garbage?

Please don't give us one of your stupid links to a 'believe in your own Armageddon' site, as some sort of proof, that only work's in the small world of sick little minds.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

In the invasion of Iraq, besides the Americans (248,000) and the British troops (45,000), they were 'supported' by 2,000 Australians, and 193 Poles.

So if Blair was Bush's lap-dogs, the leaders of the lesser nations would be the runts of the sad and sorry litter.

The fact is the United Nations hadn't given up trying to secure a diplomatic solution in Iraq, and their weapons inspectors were only withdrawn, when it was clear America was ready to invade.

I'm afraid there is no way on God's Earth that you'll convince me that Blair went into this war for the right reasons, and that he didn't know the facts about the nonexistent weapons on mass destruction.

The whole thing is about the mega-money that comes from oil, and the vanity of Blair, wooed by the half-witted President Bush.

As you once said you were in favour of the E.E.C., from an idealist's point of common fraternity, I'd rather have hoped you might have supported the ideals of the United Nations, given it's historical significance, rather than an ex-alcholoic Texan dim-wit, and his subserviant lackey.

I think I can agree with all of this ... but are you not being overly kind to Bush by saying he is "half-witted" Even "dim-wit" is a generous assessment.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Stumped

In the past religion has been one of the major causes of war. Seems like oil is fast becoming the modern day religion!

Not quite a religion but worshipped on similar lines. I believe & so do many analysts that as the resources dwindle more & more conflicts will arise between countries as a result of diminishing natural assets. At present it's Oil, but the fresh water supplies are also of much concern in many parts of the world.

Already there has been minor scuffles & dispute in the Arabian peninsula over water issues & the situation in Africa is also blatantly obvious. The scuffles here have already stretched into the realms of civil wars & acts of mass murder of opposing tribes & their associates.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

What about all the other Countries that sent troops to Iraq. Where they just American lap dogs as well?

Perhaps you should be asking which countries did not send troops ... even traditional, and still, US allies. Canada comes to mind, eh. George W's coalition of the willing, or whatever the hell he called it, was a coalition of those willing to swallow US bs. Only about 17% of Americans could place Iraq on a map; fortunately, most of them were Marines.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Eric

Perhaps you should be asking which countries did not send troops ... even traditional, and still, US allies. Canada comes to mind, eh. George W's coalition of the willing, or whatever the hell he called it, was a coalition of those willing to swallow US bs. Only about 17% of Americans could place Iraq on a map; fortunately, most of them were Marines.

Unfortunately their commander in chief couldn't some one had to point it out, or he'd have attacked Iran

[garinda]

Most Americans though that Eye-rack was a well upholstered chest, where you could comfortably rest your gaze.