Very interesting article. I’d spent years thinking the militant Shi’ites fighting Coalition forces in Iraq were Iranian puppets and stooges. It seems that they were actually just useful idiots who genuinely believed they were fighting western occupation while actually allowing their country to become Iran’s lapdog. Sectarianism has been an absolute disaster for that country. Let’s see how Britain fares in dealing with inter-Muslim disputes and violence as our population made up of these groups increases.
Logically, Shi’ites will be in the minority. Therefore, they will be persecuted by the majority until they fall into line. If non-Muslim police are involved it will be racist.
The Muslim Party, when it gets to power will introduce Sharia Law. Then a police force will not be needed – an extreme case of defunding the police.
Logically, Shi’ites will be in the minority. Therefore, they will be persecuted by the majority until they fall into line. If non-Muslim police are involved it will be racist.
The Muslim Party, when it gets to power will introduce Sharia Law. Then a police force will not be needed – an extreme case of defunding the police.
R Wright
1 year ago
Very interesting article. I’d spent years thinking the militant Shi’ites fighting Coalition forces in Iraq were Iranian puppets and stooges. It seems that they were actually just useful idiots who genuinely believed they were fighting western occupation while actually allowing their country to become Iran’s lapdog. Sectarianism has been an absolute disaster for that country. Let’s see how Britain fares in dealing with inter-Muslim disputes and violence as our population made up of these groups increases.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Iran, formerly Persia, has always coveted Mesopotamia (Iraq) and well before Islam pitched up!
First the Medes, then the Persians, followed by the Parthians, Sassanian Persians and ultimately Safavid Persia/Iran, so nothing new here.
What is disgraceful is that neither Bush or Blair and their loathsome cronies have been brought to Justice over the spurious and completely unprovoked assault on the place.
Fortunately History will NOT forget, and their names will be found be in the the Pantheon of Evil forever, albeit somewhat below those of Mao, Stalin and Hitler & Co.
Follow the money. The whole thing was about maintaining dollar supremacy, If Saddam hadn’t rashly started dealing oil in Euros, I’ve no doubt he or, if he had died in his bed of old age by now, one of his sons, would be running the place to this day.
I think you can refine that.
Israel clearly believed that Saddam was an existential threat and had to be removed, preferably by a conventional Western Crusade, but failing that by a unilateral nuclear strike.
I hope you don’t imply, or that it is not in fact true, that the the second Iraq war, with all the lies that preceded it and then all the multibillion dollar boondoggle that followed it (while not forgetting the human suffering it caused either) occurred because Israel wanted it.
So, in another interesting take on your views, you prefer Saddam Hussein to Israel. Says it all really. Israel was requested to show patience and not retaliate and did so, under huge provocation from missile attacks.
I hope you don’t imply, or that it is not in fact true, that the the second Iraq war, with all the lies that preceded it and then all the multibillion dollar boondoggle that followed it (while not forgetting the human suffering it caused either) occurred because Israel wanted it.
So, in another interesting take on your views, you prefer Saddam Hussein to Israel. Says it all really. Israel was requested to show patience and not retaliate and did so, under huge provocation from missile attacks.
I think you can refine that.
Israel clearly believed that Saddam was an existential threat and had to be removed, preferably by a conventional Western Crusade, but failing that by a unilateral nuclear strike.
Is there no topic in contemporary affairs on which you will not blether like a Presbyterian divine? To suggest that Blair or Bush approximate to Mao, Stalin or Hitler is ridiculous. I agree they were obsessive and incompetent but evil one the same scale as your other villains. Come off it.
And THIS is the level of debate we can expect on UnHerd? How utterly depressing. I don’t even think you probably believe such utter rubbish. Such a conveniently vague accusation: has Blair managed to stop Jeremy Corbyn, or the Tories, or Boris Johnson or perhaps Donald Trump being elected perhaps? Has he prevailed upon Mr Putin not to invade Ukraine?
And THIS is the level of debate we can expect on UnHerd? How utterly depressing. I don’t even think you probably believe such utter rubbish. Such a conveniently vague accusation: has Blair managed to stop Jeremy Corbyn, or the Tories, or Boris Johnson or perhaps Donald Trump being elected perhaps? Has he prevailed upon Mr Putin not to invade Ukraine?
What unhinged garbage. I don’t think Blair and Bush are responsible for killing millions, as those three are, up to 80 million in the case of Mao. You seem to have completely lost the plot.
Follow the money. The whole thing was about maintaining dollar supremacy, If Saddam hadn’t rashly started dealing oil in Euros, I’ve no doubt he or, if he had died in his bed of old age by now, one of his sons, would be running the place to this day.
Is there no topic in contemporary affairs on which you will not blether like a Presbyterian divine? To suggest that Blair or Bush approximate to Mao, Stalin or Hitler is ridiculous. I agree they were obsessive and incompetent but evil one the same scale as your other villains. Come off it.
What unhinged garbage. I don’t think Blair and Bush are responsible for killing millions, as those three are, up to 80 million in the case of Mao. You seem to have completely lost the plot.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Iran, formerly Persia, has always coveted Mesopotamia (Iraq) and well before Islam pitched up!
First the Medes, then the Persians, followed by the Parthians, Sassanian Persians and ultimately Safavid Persia/Iran, so nothing new here.
What is disgraceful is that neither Bush or Blair and their loathsome cronies have been brought to Justice over the spurious and completely unprovoked assault on the place.
Fortunately History will NOT forget, and their names will be found be in the the Pantheon of Evil forever, albeit somewhat below those of Mao, Stalin and Hitler & Co.
Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Gordon Arta
1 year ago
‘They (the US of course) are responsible for keeping it safe while holding all groups, including the Iran-backed Shia militias, to account.’ Always the same with Muslims, it’s someone else to blame. The problem with Iraq is Islam, a garbled, entirely man-made religious ideology capable of an infinite variety of ‘interpretations’, every one of which demands utter certainty of and submission to its diktats.
Gordon Arta
1 year ago
‘They (the US of course) are responsible for keeping it safe while holding all groups, including the Iran-backed Shia militias, to account.’ Always the same with Muslims, it’s someone else to blame. The problem with Iraq is Islam, a garbled, entirely man-made religious ideology capable of an infinite variety of ‘interpretations’, every one of which demands utter certainty of and submission to its diktats.
Rob Nock
1 year ago
Interesting article which feels balanced, fair, believable and very depressing.
Rob Nock
1 year ago
Interesting article which feels balanced, fair, believable and very depressing.
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
I worked closely with 150 Iraqis in Baghdad in 2004 and the occupying force – consisting a large proportion of conscripted, raw, inexperienced US ‘soldiers’
who had ‘conquerer’ syndrome and whose attitude and day to day interaction with the population consistently squandered any goodwill there was. I witnessed the arrogance of these conquerors on the ground, ‘lording it’ over a population who were trying to exist a year later without the bare necessities after Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ pounding of the city. Many at that time were still living with little or no food, electricity, water for their families yet remained positive and dignified. No matter how many trillion dollars was sloshed around by the US in the aftermath, they had lost the war of hearts and minds…..
Thank you so much for writing an informed comment; unlike some of the ranting obsessives on here!
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
I worked closely with 150 Iraqis in Baghdad in 2004 and the occupying force – consisting a large proportion of conscripted, raw, inexperienced US ‘soldiers’
who had ‘conquerer’ syndrome and whose attitude and day to day interaction with the population consistently squandered any goodwill there was. I witnessed the arrogance of these conquerors on the ground, ‘lording it’ over a population who were trying to exist a year later without the bare necessities after Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ pounding of the city. Many at that time were still living with little or no food, electricity, water for their families yet remained positive and dignified. No matter how many trillion dollars was sloshed around by the US in the aftermath, they had lost the war of hearts and minds…..
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
The Iraqis resisted the US Occupation. The US withdrew. Then the Iraqis complain that the country is too unstable for them to establish democracy. Wasn’t that the whole point of killing US Soldiers? To get rid of them so Iraq could return to dictatorship with Muqtada al Sadr in charge? All of those IEDs had a purpose. It certainly wasn’t peace and democracy. IEDs have consequences. Iraqis should have considered them before they used IEDs to push the US out.
The Iraqis did this to themselves. There’s no colonial responsibilty for the US. They wanted the US out, and they got their wish. It turned out to be less than ideal. Tough. It ain’t our problem.
Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas Proudfoot
Douglas Proudfoot
1 year ago
The Iraqis resisted the US Occupation. The US withdrew. Then the Iraqis complain that the country is too unstable for them to establish democracy. Wasn’t that the whole point of killing US Soldiers? To get rid of them so Iraq could return to dictatorship with Muqtada al Sadr in charge? All of those IEDs had a purpose. It certainly wasn’t peace and democracy. IEDs have consequences. Iraqis should have considered them before they used IEDs to push the US out.
The Iraqis did this to themselves. There’s no colonial responsibilty for the US. They wanted the US out, and they got their wish. It turned out to be less than ideal. Tough. It ain’t our problem.
Last edited 1 year ago by Douglas Proudfoot
Dominic A
1 year ago
Who will rid us of the glory seeking narcissists who claim to be selfless, heroic liberators & defenders, but are the very opposite. Those who ignore learning, history, and the lives and welfare of their own people… because the power excites them: Stalin, Mao, Bush Jr, Pol Pot, the IRA, UDA, al-Zarqawi, Putin, and to a lesser extent, closer to home, the extreme wokeists.
Ah, Chuckling Charlie! Shouldn’t you just carry on chuntering on about the Medes and the Persians, and leave the grown ups to have a proper discussion. I was genuinely interested in how ‘woke’, a word I never, ever heard used in real life fitted into a discussion about the aftermath of what most people now agree was a disaster of monumental proportions. I also notice you went for the lazy route of blaming ‘Bush and Blair’ when the Tory Party and the media were, in this country, equally to blame. The civil war in Iraq was not only foreseeable, but indeed foreseen, by experts who understood the region but the decision to go to war was endorsed by the Conservatives and the media with little or no challenge.
Well Murray now that your syntax resembles that of an adult, unlike yesterday when it was of that of a child, we may have a reasonable discussion.
You are quite correct, the so called Tory Party and their lickspittle Press allies were indeed “baying for blood” over Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In fact it was a truly revolting spectacle, but at the end of the day it was Blair and Blair alone who held executive power and made the fatal decision, even if he needed Tory votes to accomplish it.
In retrospect it is by far the most despicable action this country has been party to since 1945, far exceeding the atrocities of Mau Mau or Cyprus or even those minor indiscretions in Ireland.
Fortunately national amnesia has meant most of us have now forgotten this atrocity, but I very doubt certain members of militant Islam have.
So we must expect to “reap the whirlwind”* in the NOT too distant future.
(* Hosea 8:7 and also’Bomber’ Harris of WWII fame.)
You really don’t need to channel your inner Piers Morgan in every response. I get it, let’s take it as read.
I guess my wider point was that while Blair bears ultimate responsibility, and a lot of blood is indeed on his hands, we should also ensure all of those who allowed him to take us to war are held accountable. In part because no one in politics or the media ever takes responsibility for anything, everything is someone else’s fault when things go wrong.
On Brexit for example, it really doesn’t matter how you voted in 2016 it is painfully obvious that the benefits promised in the referendum haven’t been delivered, but the Brexit Ultras still talk about ‘Remoaners’ and give us Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard “I’m still big, it’s the pictures that got small” rather than being honest and having an inclusive debate about what we do about it.
For the small boats bill to have any chance of working we would need a Home Secretary who can lead and motivate staff, and can deliver, but we have Culture War Warrior, Suella Braverman, already blaming everyone else, including her own people.
Who is this Piers Morgan you speak of?
Otherwise we seem to concur which is encouraging.
However I have been disappointed with your performance throughout this discussion.
At the start I very mildly chastised you for writing an incoherent sentence. My exact words were “ You need to rewrite your first sentence, it is incomprehensible as it stands”.
The result was you threw a ‘hissy fit’ and proceeded to spew out a number of rather ill-bred, snide expletives, thus sadly demeaning your good self.
If a commentator on UnHerd can behave like this ( assuming you are NOT Irish) what hope is there?
,
Funny man. You are right, though, that attempting to have a coherent, meaningful discussion with someone pretending to be one of the more annoying characters from Dickens is unlikely to be fruitful. FYI, it’s ‘good self’ not ‘good yourself’ so physician heal yourself, I feel.
You have been a fairly vulgar tyke throughout this discussion, are you perhaps related to Lliam O’ Bogtrotter* of this Parish? It certainly sounds like it.
Thank you for the correction over good self…..that predicted text gremiin …….again!
Vulgar? What are you, an 80 year old spinster from 1901? Your problem, Charles, is that you are not remotely as clever as you think you are, and seem to have a third rate opinion on everything under the sun. I thought the quality of discourse on Unherd would be a vast improvement on Twitter which I left a long time ago. I’m hoping you are just the exception….
Vulgar? What are you, an 80 year old spinster from 1901? Your problem, Charles, is that you are not remotely as clever as you think you are, and seem to have a third rate opinion on everything under the sun. I thought the quality of discourse on Unherd would be a vast improvement on Twitter which I left a long time ago. I’m hoping you are just the exception….
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…coarseness now, as well as vulgar? Wow, you really are that 80 year old spinster (and, of course, it’s nothing to do with Maths, I’m not talking literally but about a state of mind, do try and keep up), hence the pearl clutching language. The reason I left Twitter is because there were too many folk just like you, and I won’t return because there will still be too many people just like you. Probably time for your carer to put you to bed with a nice glass of warm milk so I suggest we end this here.
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…coarseness now, as well as vulgar? Wow, you really are that 80 year old spinster (and, of course, it’s nothing to do with Maths, I’m not talking literally but about a state of mind, do try and keep up), hence the pearl clutching language. The reason I left Twitter is because there were too many folk just like you, and I won’t return because there will still be too many people just like you. Probably time for your carer to put you to bed with a nice glass of warm milk so I suggest we end this here.
You have been a fairly vulgar tyke throughout this discussion, are you perhaps related to Lliam O’ Bogtrotter* of this Parish? It certainly sounds like it.
Thank you for the correction over good self…..that predicted text gremiin …….again!
Funny man. You are right, though, that attempting to have a coherent, meaningful discussion with someone pretending to be one of the more annoying characters from Dickens is unlikely to be fruitful. FYI, it’s ‘good self’ not ‘good yourself’ so physician heal yourself, I feel.
Who is this Piers Morgan you speak of?
Otherwise we seem to concur which is encouraging.
However I have been disappointed with your performance throughout this discussion.
At the start I very mildly chastised you for writing an incoherent sentence. My exact words were “ You need to rewrite your first sentence, it is incomprehensible as it stands”.
The result was you threw a ‘hissy fit’ and proceeded to spew out a number of rather ill-bred, snide expletives, thus sadly demeaning your good self.
If a commentator on UnHerd can behave like this ( assuming you are NOT Irish) what hope is there?
,
You really don’t need to channel your inner Piers Morgan in every response. I get it, let’s take it as read.
I guess my wider point was that while Blair bears ultimate responsibility, and a lot of blood is indeed on his hands, we should also ensure all of those who allowed him to take us to war are held accountable. In part because no one in politics or the media ever takes responsibility for anything, everything is someone else’s fault when things go wrong.
On Brexit for example, it really doesn’t matter how you voted in 2016 it is painfully obvious that the benefits promised in the referendum haven’t been delivered, but the Brexit Ultras still talk about ‘Remoaners’ and give us Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard “I’m still big, it’s the pictures that got small” rather than being honest and having an inclusive debate about what we do about it.
For the small boats bill to have any chance of working we would need a Home Secretary who can lead and motivate staff, and can deliver, but we have Culture War Warrior, Suella Braverman, already blaming everyone else, including her own people.
Well Murray now that your syntax resembles that of an adult, unlike yesterday when it was of that of a child, we may have a reasonable discussion.
You are quite correct, the so called Tory Party and their lickspittle Press allies were indeed “baying for blood” over Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In fact it was a truly revolting spectacle, but at the end of the day it was Blair and Blair alone who held executive power and made the fatal decision, even if he needed Tory votes to accomplish it.
In retrospect it is by far the most despicable action this country has been party to since 1945, far exceeding the atrocities of Mau Mau or Cyprus or even those minor indiscretions in Ireland.
Fortunately national amnesia has meant most of us have now forgotten this atrocity, but I very doubt certain members of militant Islam have.
So we must expect to “reap the whirlwind”* in the NOT too distant future.
(* Hosea 8:7 and also’Bomber’ Harris of WWII fame.)
Ah, Chuckling Charlie! Shouldn’t you just carry on chuntering on about the Medes and the Persians, and leave the grown ups to have a proper discussion. I was genuinely interested in how ‘woke’, a word I never, ever heard used in real life fitted into a discussion about the aftermath of what most people now agree was a disaster of monumental proportions. I also notice you went for the lazy route of blaming ‘Bush and Blair’ when the Tory Party and the media were, in this country, equally to blame. The civil war in Iraq was not only foreseeable, but indeed foreseen, by experts who understood the region but the decision to go to war was endorsed by the Conservatives and the media with little or no challenge.
Activists, such as Kendi, DiAngelo, and various individuals operating within groups such as Mermaids and BLM who have departed the good work of equality for the false Gods of Equity, Grift and Fame. Hectoring and lecturing with effective but sloppy rhetoric, posing as rights advocates for the disenfranchised, whilst making $millions and riding the Likes Gravy Train. For political balance I should also call out their mirror opposites, the Populist Narcs on the right – Carlson, MT-G, and the Orangeman.
Eh? What happened in Iraq was essentially the result of narcissistic overreach – at least that is the theory of my original post – Bush’s, al-Zarqawi, and more generally American and Religious over-reach. There is a direct connection, I think, with the identity politics of our time – whether woke, or anti-woke – ego games played by grandstanders whilst the World crumbles, and which actually deepens the very problems they claim to be concerned about. I also tried to make it clear – “to a lesser extent, closer to home”- that I do not equate wars killing millions to culture wars….but it is relevant because it is the same core psych-social dysfunction, and it is here, now in our culture and country.
Eh? What happened in Iraq was essentially the result of narcissistic overreach – at least that is the theory of my original post – Bush’s, al-Zarqawi, and more generally American and Religious over-reach. There is a direct connection, I think, with the identity politics of our time – whether woke, or anti-woke – ego games played by grandstanders whilst the World crumbles, and which actually deepens the very problems they claim to be concerned about. I also tried to make it clear – “to a lesser extent, closer to home”- that I do not equate wars killing millions to culture wars….but it is relevant because it is the same core psych-social dysfunction, and it is here, now in our culture and country.
My take on the expression is that it refers to extreme activism which seeks to deny fact, dictate the way we think and feel and demand obedience, with threats of retribution, to their cause….
I agree. The extremes of the ‘woke’ intelligentsia who ‘demand’ that we think the ‘right way’ – i.e. ‘their way’ is akin to the secret police employed by all dictators.
Activists, such as Kendi, DiAngelo, and various individuals operating within groups such as Mermaids and BLM who have departed the good work of equality for the false Gods of Equity, Grift and Fame. Hectoring and lecturing with effective but sloppy rhetoric, posing as rights advocates for the disenfranchised, whilst making $millions and riding the Likes Gravy Train. For political balance I should also call out their mirror opposites, the Populist Narcs on the right – Carlson, MT-G, and the Orangeman.
My take on the expression is that it refers to extreme activism which seeks to deny fact, dictate the way we think and feel and demand obedience, with threats of retribution, to their cause….
I agree. The extremes of the ‘woke’ intelligentsia who ‘demand’ that we think the ‘right way’ – i.e. ‘their way’ is akin to the secret police employed by all dictators.
Who will rid us of the glory seeking narcissists who claim to be selfless, heroic liberators & defenders, but are the very opposite. Those who ignore learning, history, and the lives and welfare of their own people… because the power excites them: Stalin, Mao, Bush Jr, Pol Pot, the IRA, UDA, al-Zarqawi, Putin, and to a lesser extent, closer to home, the extreme wokeists.
Jacob Mason
1 year ago
A good read. I must, however, object to the characterization of suicide bombers.
Describing them as “martyred” in the passive voice may reflect the views of some Iraqis, but from any decent moral lens these men should be regarded as wretched, religiously-motivated suicidees who typically cared little about collateral damage to innocents.
What kind of reaction would we have if a Christian in the US or Europe blew himself up in the middle of a crowded nightclub out of religious zeal? Most people would not say that man was “martyred”.
Jacob Mason
1 year ago
A good read. I must, however, object to the characterization of suicide bombers.
Describing them as “martyred” in the passive voice may reflect the views of some Iraqis, but from any decent moral lens these men should be regarded as wretched, religiously-motivated suicidees who typically cared little about collateral damage to innocents.
What kind of reaction would we have if a Christian in the US or Europe blew himself up in the middle of a crowded nightclub out of religious zeal? Most people would not say that man was “martyred”.
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
I place much blame on Bremmer and the unwise discharge of people who knew how to keep the lights working. The corruption of Saddam was mostly within a smaller group and the religious issues could have been better managed had the US not interfered. Don’t know why propaganda techniques were not used to avoid Iran meddling when it became obvious of the exploitation of religion.
Main Edition
US
FR
Very interesting article. I’d spent years thinking the militant Shi’ites fighting Coalition forces in Iraq were Iranian puppets and stooges. It seems that they were actually just useful idiots who genuinely believed they were fighting western occupation while actually allowing their country to become Iran’s lapdog. Sectarianism has been an absolute disaster for that country. Let’s see how Britain fares in dealing with inter-Muslim disputes and violence as our population made up of these groups increases.
Logically, Shi’ites will be in the minority. Therefore, they will be persecuted by the majority until they fall into line. If non-Muslim police are involved it will be racist.
The Muslim Party, when it gets to power will introduce Sharia Law. Then a police force will not be needed – an extreme case of defunding the police.
Logically, Shi’ites will be in the minority. Therefore, they will be persecuted by the majority until they fall into line. If non-Muslim police are involved it will be racist.
The Muslim Party, when it gets to power will introduce Sharia Law. Then a police force will not be needed – an extreme case of defunding the police.
Very interesting article. I’d spent years thinking the militant Shi’ites fighting Coalition forces in Iraq were Iranian puppets and stooges. It seems that they were actually just useful idiots who genuinely believed they were fighting western occupation while actually allowing their country to become Iran’s lapdog. Sectarianism has been an absolute disaster for that country. Let’s see how Britain fares in dealing with inter-Muslim disputes and violence as our population made up of these groups increases.
Iran, formerly Persia, has always coveted Mesopotamia (Iraq) and well before Islam pitched up!
First the Medes, then the Persians, followed by the Parthians, Sassanian Persians and ultimately Safavid Persia/Iran, so nothing new here.
What is disgraceful is that neither Bush or Blair and their loathsome cronies have been brought to Justice over the spurious and completely unprovoked assault on the place.
Fortunately History will NOT forget, and their names will be found be in the the Pantheon of Evil forever, albeit somewhat below those of Mao, Stalin and Hitler & Co.
Follow the money. The whole thing was about maintaining dollar supremacy, If Saddam hadn’t rashly started dealing oil in Euros, I’ve no doubt he or, if he had died in his bed of old age by now, one of his sons, would be running the place to this day.
Nonsense. As the Observer -not exactly a right wing rag -noted, ‘Saddam is a danger to his country, to the region, and to the world’.
I think you can refine that.
Israel clearly believed that Saddam was an existential threat and had to be removed, preferably by a conventional Western Crusade, but failing that by a unilateral nuclear strike.
So perhaps ‘we’ got off lightly.
I hope you don’t imply, or that it is not in fact true, that the the second Iraq war, with all the lies that preceded it and then all the multibillion dollar boondoggle that followed it (while not forgetting the human suffering it caused either) occurred because Israel wanted it.
I can only think of what Marcus Tullius Cicero would have said:” Cui Bono?”
Iran has been the overwhelming beneficiary of the war. Israel has been saved from one existential threat but not another.
Iran has been the overwhelming beneficiary of the war. Israel has been saved from one existential threat but not another.
I can only think of what Marcus Tullius Cicero would have said:” Cui Bono?”
So, in another interesting take on your views, you prefer Saddam Hussein to Israel. Says it all really. Israel was requested to show patience and not retaliate and did so, under huge provocation from missile attacks.
I hope you don’t imply, or that it is not in fact true, that the the second Iraq war, with all the lies that preceded it and then all the multibillion dollar boondoggle that followed it (while not forgetting the human suffering it caused either) occurred because Israel wanted it.
So, in another interesting take on your views, you prefer Saddam Hussein to Israel. Says it all really. Israel was requested to show patience and not retaliate and did so, under huge provocation from missile attacks.
Propaganda at its very best. Herr Goebbels would have been proud.
I think you can refine that.
Israel clearly believed that Saddam was an existential threat and had to be removed, preferably by a conventional Western Crusade, but failing that by a unilateral nuclear strike.
So perhaps ‘we’ got off lightly.
Propaganda at its very best. Herr Goebbels would have been proud.
Nonsense. As the Observer -not exactly a right wing rag -noted, ‘Saddam is a danger to his country, to the region, and to the world’.
Is there no topic in contemporary affairs on which you will not blether like a Presbyterian divine? To suggest that Blair or Bush approximate to Mao, Stalin or Hitler is ridiculous. I agree they were obsessive and incompetent but evil one the same scale as your other villains. Come off it.
What’s wrong with your powers of comprehension Croom?
I quite clearly wrote “albeit somewhat below those of ………”. So how do you make that equivalence?
Incidentally isn’t it blather or is blether some form of obscure Scotch usage?
Blair is evil in the same way because he is still around and is a background controller.
And THIS is the level of debate we can expect on UnHerd? How utterly depressing. I don’t even think you probably believe such utter rubbish. Such a conveniently vague accusation: has Blair managed to stop Jeremy Corbyn, or the Tories, or Boris Johnson or perhaps Donald Trump being elected perhaps? Has he prevailed upon Mr Putin not to invade Ukraine?
And THIS is the level of debate we can expect on UnHerd? How utterly depressing. I don’t even think you probably believe such utter rubbish. Such a conveniently vague accusation: has Blair managed to stop Jeremy Corbyn, or the Tories, or Boris Johnson or perhaps Donald Trump being elected perhaps? Has he prevailed upon Mr Putin not to invade Ukraine?
What’s wrong with your powers of comprehension Croom?
I quite clearly wrote “albeit somewhat below those of ………”. So how do you make that equivalence?
Incidentally isn’t it blather or is blether some form of obscure Scotch usage?
Blair is evil in the same way because he is still around and is a background controller.
Awaiting for approval.
What is also disgraceful is that Blair still seems to have some influence. Let’s see what happens when Labour wins the next election.
What unhinged garbage. I don’t think Blair and Bush are responsible for killing millions, as those three are, up to 80 million in the case of Mao. You seem to have completely lost the plot.
Follow the money. The whole thing was about maintaining dollar supremacy, If Saddam hadn’t rashly started dealing oil in Euros, I’ve no doubt he or, if he had died in his bed of old age by now, one of his sons, would be running the place to this day.
Is there no topic in contemporary affairs on which you will not blether like a Presbyterian divine? To suggest that Blair or Bush approximate to Mao, Stalin or Hitler is ridiculous. I agree they were obsessive and incompetent but evil one the same scale as your other villains. Come off it.
Awaiting for approval.
What is also disgraceful is that Blair still seems to have some influence. Let’s see what happens when Labour wins the next election.
What unhinged garbage. I don’t think Blair and Bush are responsible for killing millions, as those three are, up to 80 million in the case of Mao. You seem to have completely lost the plot.
Iran, formerly Persia, has always coveted Mesopotamia (Iraq) and well before Islam pitched up!
First the Medes, then the Persians, followed by the Parthians, Sassanian Persians and ultimately Safavid Persia/Iran, so nothing new here.
What is disgraceful is that neither Bush or Blair and their loathsome cronies have been brought to Justice over the spurious and completely unprovoked assault on the place.
Fortunately History will NOT forget, and their names will be found be in the the Pantheon of Evil forever, albeit somewhat below those of Mao, Stalin and Hitler & Co.
‘They (the US of course) are responsible for keeping it safe while holding all groups, including the Iran-backed Shia militias, to account.’ Always the same with Muslims, it’s someone else to blame. The problem with Iraq is Islam, a garbled, entirely man-made religious ideology capable of an infinite variety of ‘interpretations’, every one of which demands utter certainty of and submission to its diktats.
‘They (the US of course) are responsible for keeping it safe while holding all groups, including the Iran-backed Shia militias, to account.’ Always the same with Muslims, it’s someone else to blame. The problem with Iraq is Islam, a garbled, entirely man-made religious ideology capable of an infinite variety of ‘interpretations’, every one of which demands utter certainty of and submission to its diktats.
Interesting article which feels balanced, fair, believable and very depressing.
Interesting article which feels balanced, fair, believable and very depressing.
I worked closely with 150 Iraqis in Baghdad in 2004 and the occupying force – consisting a large proportion of conscripted, raw, inexperienced US ‘soldiers’
who had ‘conquerer’ syndrome and whose attitude and day to day interaction with the population consistently squandered any goodwill there was. I witnessed the arrogance of these conquerors on the ground, ‘lording it’ over a population who were trying to exist a year later without the bare necessities after Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ pounding of the city. Many at that time were still living with little or no food, electricity, water for their families yet remained positive and dignified. No matter how many trillion dollars was sloshed around by the US in the aftermath, they had lost the war of hearts and minds…..
Thank you so much for writing an informed comment; unlike some of the ranting obsessives on here!
Thank you so much for writing an informed comment; unlike some of the ranting obsessives on here!
I worked closely with 150 Iraqis in Baghdad in 2004 and the occupying force – consisting a large proportion of conscripted, raw, inexperienced US ‘soldiers’
who had ‘conquerer’ syndrome and whose attitude and day to day interaction with the population consistently squandered any goodwill there was. I witnessed the arrogance of these conquerors on the ground, ‘lording it’ over a population who were trying to exist a year later without the bare necessities after Bush’s ‘shock and awe’ pounding of the city. Many at that time were still living with little or no food, electricity, water for their families yet remained positive and dignified. No matter how many trillion dollars was sloshed around by the US in the aftermath, they had lost the war of hearts and minds…..
The Iraqis resisted the US Occupation. The US withdrew. Then the Iraqis complain that the country is too unstable for them to establish democracy. Wasn’t that the whole point of killing US Soldiers? To get rid of them so Iraq could return to dictatorship with Muqtada al Sadr in charge? All of those IEDs had a purpose. It certainly wasn’t peace and democracy. IEDs have consequences. Iraqis should have considered them before they used IEDs to push the US out.
The Iraqis did this to themselves. There’s no colonial responsibilty for the US. They wanted the US out, and they got their wish. It turned out to be less than ideal. Tough. It ain’t our problem.
The Iraqis resisted the US Occupation. The US withdrew. Then the Iraqis complain that the country is too unstable for them to establish democracy. Wasn’t that the whole point of killing US Soldiers? To get rid of them so Iraq could return to dictatorship with Muqtada al Sadr in charge? All of those IEDs had a purpose. It certainly wasn’t peace and democracy. IEDs have consequences. Iraqis should have considered them before they used IEDs to push the US out.
The Iraqis did this to themselves. There’s no colonial responsibilty for the US. They wanted the US out, and they got their wish. It turned out to be less than ideal. Tough. It ain’t our problem.
Who will rid us of the glory seeking narcissists who claim to be selfless, heroic liberators & defenders, but are the very opposite. Those who ignore learning, history, and the lives and welfare of their own people… because the power excites them: Stalin, Mao, Bush Jr, Pol Pot, the IRA, UDA, al-Zarqawi, Putin, and to a lesser extent, closer to home, the extreme wokeists.
What exactly is an ‘extreme wokeist’? And how exactly do their crimes compare to, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?
Great improvement Murray, keep it up!
Ah, Chuckling Charlie! Shouldn’t you just carry on chuntering on about the Medes and the Persians, and leave the grown ups to have a proper discussion. I was genuinely interested in how ‘woke’, a word I never, ever heard used in real life fitted into a discussion about the aftermath of what most people now agree was a disaster of monumental proportions. I also notice you went for the lazy route of blaming ‘Bush and Blair’ when the Tory Party and the media were, in this country, equally to blame. The civil war in Iraq was not only foreseeable, but indeed foreseen, by experts who understood the region but the decision to go to war was endorsed by the Conservatives and the media with little or no challenge.
Well Murray now that your syntax resembles that of an adult, unlike yesterday when it was of that of a child, we may have a reasonable discussion.
You are quite correct, the so called Tory Party and their lickspittle Press allies were indeed “baying for blood” over Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In fact it was a truly revolting spectacle, but at the end of the day it was Blair and Blair alone who held executive power and made the fatal decision, even if he needed Tory votes to accomplish it.
In retrospect it is by far the most despicable action this country has been party to since 1945, far exceeding the atrocities of Mau Mau or Cyprus or even those minor indiscretions in Ireland.
Fortunately national amnesia has meant most of us have now forgotten this atrocity, but I very doubt certain members of militant Islam have.
So we must expect to “reap the whirlwind”* in the NOT too distant future.
(* Hosea 8:7 and also’Bomber’ Harris of WWII fame.)
You really don’t need to channel your inner Piers Morgan in every response. I get it, let’s take it as read.
I guess my wider point was that while Blair bears ultimate responsibility, and a lot of blood is indeed on his hands, we should also ensure all of those who allowed him to take us to war are held accountable. In part because no one in politics or the media ever takes responsibility for anything, everything is someone else’s fault when things go wrong.
On Brexit for example, it really doesn’t matter how you voted in 2016 it is painfully obvious that the benefits promised in the referendum haven’t been delivered, but the Brexit Ultras still talk about ‘Remoaners’ and give us Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard “I’m still big, it’s the pictures that got small” rather than being honest and having an inclusive debate about what we do about it.
For the small boats bill to have any chance of working we would need a Home Secretary who can lead and motivate staff, and can deliver, but we have Culture War Warrior, Suella Braverman, already blaming everyone else, including her own people.
I could go on….
Who is this Piers Morgan you speak of?
Otherwise we seem to concur which is encouraging.
However I have been disappointed with your performance throughout this discussion.
At the start I very mildly chastised you for writing an incoherent sentence. My exact words were “ You need to rewrite your first sentence, it is incomprehensible as it stands”.
The result was you threw a ‘hissy fit’ and proceeded to spew out a number of rather ill-bred, snide expletives, thus sadly demeaning your good self.
If a commentator on UnHerd can behave like this ( assuming you are NOT Irish) what hope is there?
,
Funny man. You are right, though, that attempting to have a coherent, meaningful discussion with someone pretending to be one of the more annoying characters from Dickens is unlikely to be fruitful. FYI, it’s ‘good self’ not ‘good yourself’ so physician heal yourself, I feel.
You have been a fairly vulgar tyke throughout this discussion, are you perhaps related to Lliam O’ Bogtrotter* of this Parish? It certainly sounds like it.
Thank you for the correction over good self…..that predicted text gremiin …….again!
(* Mahony.)
Vulgar? What are you, an 80 year old spinster from 1901? Your problem, Charles, is that you are not remotely as clever as you think you are, and seem to have a third rate opinion on everything under the sun. I thought the quality of discourse on Unherd would be a vast improvement on Twitter which I left a long time ago. I’m hoping you are just the exception….
You’ve made a mistake and should return to the ‘Twitter World’ where I am sure your coarseness will be much appreciated.
Incidentally what is wrong with your Maths?
You’ve made a mistake and should return to the ‘Twitter World’ where I am sure your coarseness will be much appreciated.
Incidentally what is wrong with your Maths?
Vulgar? What are you, an 80 year old spinster from 1901? Your problem, Charles, is that you are not remotely as clever as you think you are, and seem to have a third rate opinion on everything under the sun. I thought the quality of discourse on Unherd would be a vast improvement on Twitter which I left a long time ago. I’m hoping you are just the exception….
“Physician heal THYSELF”.*
(* Luke 4:23.)
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…coarseness now, as well as vulgar? Wow, you really are that 80 year old spinster (and, of course, it’s nothing to do with Maths, I’m not talking literally but about a state of mind, do try and keep up), hence the pearl clutching language. The reason I left Twitter is because there were too many folk just like you, and I won’t return because there will still be too many people just like you. Probably time for your carer to put you to bed with a nice glass of warm milk so I suggest we end this here.
Agreed, it is getting rather tedious.
Thanks for the ‘sport’.
Agreed, it is getting rather tedious.
Thanks for the ‘sport’.
Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…coarseness now, as well as vulgar? Wow, you really are that 80 year old spinster (and, of course, it’s nothing to do with Maths, I’m not talking literally but about a state of mind, do try and keep up), hence the pearl clutching language. The reason I left Twitter is because there were too many folk just like you, and I won’t return because there will still be too many people just like you. Probably time for your carer to put you to bed with a nice glass of warm milk so I suggest we end this here.
You have been a fairly vulgar tyke throughout this discussion, are you perhaps related to Lliam O’ Bogtrotter* of this Parish? It certainly sounds like it.
Thank you for the correction over good self…..that predicted text gremiin …….again!
(* Mahony.)
“Physician heal THYSELF”.*
(* Luke 4:23.)
Funny man. You are right, though, that attempting to have a coherent, meaningful discussion with someone pretending to be one of the more annoying characters from Dickens is unlikely to be fruitful. FYI, it’s ‘good self’ not ‘good yourself’ so physician heal yourself, I feel.
Who is this Piers Morgan you speak of?
Otherwise we seem to concur which is encouraging.
However I have been disappointed with your performance throughout this discussion.
At the start I very mildly chastised you for writing an incoherent sentence. My exact words were “ You need to rewrite your first sentence, it is incomprehensible as it stands”.
The result was you threw a ‘hissy fit’ and proceeded to spew out a number of rather ill-bred, snide expletives, thus sadly demeaning your good self.
If a commentator on UnHerd can behave like this ( assuming you are NOT Irish) what hope is there?
,
You really don’t need to channel your inner Piers Morgan in every response. I get it, let’s take it as read.
I guess my wider point was that while Blair bears ultimate responsibility, and a lot of blood is indeed on his hands, we should also ensure all of those who allowed him to take us to war are held accountable. In part because no one in politics or the media ever takes responsibility for anything, everything is someone else’s fault when things go wrong.
On Brexit for example, it really doesn’t matter how you voted in 2016 it is painfully obvious that the benefits promised in the referendum haven’t been delivered, but the Brexit Ultras still talk about ‘Remoaners’ and give us Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard “I’m still big, it’s the pictures that got small” rather than being honest and having an inclusive debate about what we do about it.
For the small boats bill to have any chance of working we would need a Home Secretary who can lead and motivate staff, and can deliver, but we have Culture War Warrior, Suella Braverman, already blaming everyone else, including her own people.
I could go on….
Well Murray now that your syntax resembles that of an adult, unlike yesterday when it was of that of a child, we may have a reasonable discussion.
You are quite correct, the so called Tory Party and their lickspittle Press allies were indeed “baying for blood” over Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In fact it was a truly revolting spectacle, but at the end of the day it was Blair and Blair alone who held executive power and made the fatal decision, even if he needed Tory votes to accomplish it.
In retrospect it is by far the most despicable action this country has been party to since 1945, far exceeding the atrocities of Mau Mau or Cyprus or even those minor indiscretions in Ireland.
Fortunately national amnesia has meant most of us have now forgotten this atrocity, but I very doubt certain members of militant Islam have.
So we must expect to “reap the whirlwind”* in the NOT too distant future.
(* Hosea 8:7 and also’Bomber’ Harris of WWII fame.)
Ah, Chuckling Charlie! Shouldn’t you just carry on chuntering on about the Medes and the Persians, and leave the grown ups to have a proper discussion. I was genuinely interested in how ‘woke’, a word I never, ever heard used in real life fitted into a discussion about the aftermath of what most people now agree was a disaster of monumental proportions. I also notice you went for the lazy route of blaming ‘Bush and Blair’ when the Tory Party and the media were, in this country, equally to blame. The civil war in Iraq was not only foreseeable, but indeed foreseen, by experts who understood the region but the decision to go to war was endorsed by the Conservatives and the media with little or no challenge.
Activists, such as Kendi, DiAngelo, and various individuals operating within groups such as Mermaids and BLM who have departed the good work of equality for the false Gods of Equity, Grift and Fame. Hectoring and lecturing with effective but sloppy rhetoric, posing as rights advocates for the disenfranchised, whilst making $millions and riding the Likes Gravy Train. For political balance I should also call out their mirror opposites, the Populist Narcs on the right – Carlson, MT-G, and the Orangeman.
OK, so nothing to do with the article or what happened in Iraq. Just wanted to check.
Eh? What happened in Iraq was essentially the result of narcissistic overreach – at least that is the theory of my original post – Bush’s, al-Zarqawi, and more generally American and Religious over-reach. There is a direct connection, I think, with the identity politics of our time – whether woke, or anti-woke – ego games played by grandstanders whilst the World crumbles, and which actually deepens the very problems they claim to be concerned about. I also tried to make it clear – “to a lesser extent, closer to home”- that I do not equate wars killing millions to culture wars….but it is relevant because it is the same core psych-social dysfunction, and it is here, now in our culture and country.
Eh? What happened in Iraq was essentially the result of narcissistic overreach – at least that is the theory of my original post – Bush’s, al-Zarqawi, and more generally American and Religious over-reach. There is a direct connection, I think, with the identity politics of our time – whether woke, or anti-woke – ego games played by grandstanders whilst the World crumbles, and which actually deepens the very problems they claim to be concerned about. I also tried to make it clear – “to a lesser extent, closer to home”- that I do not equate wars killing millions to culture wars….but it is relevant because it is the same core psych-social dysfunction, and it is here, now in our culture and country.
OK, so nothing to do with the article or what happened in Iraq. Just wanted to check.
My take on the expression is that it refers to extreme activism which seeks to deny fact, dictate the way we think and feel and demand obedience, with threats of retribution, to their cause….
I agree. The extremes of the ‘woke’ intelligentsia who ‘demand’ that we think the ‘right way’ – i.e. ‘their way’ is akin to the secret police employed by all dictators.
Great improvement Murray, keep it up!
Activists, such as Kendi, DiAngelo, and various individuals operating within groups such as Mermaids and BLM who have departed the good work of equality for the false Gods of Equity, Grift and Fame. Hectoring and lecturing with effective but sloppy rhetoric, posing as rights advocates for the disenfranchised, whilst making $millions and riding the Likes Gravy Train. For political balance I should also call out their mirror opposites, the Populist Narcs on the right – Carlson, MT-G, and the Orangeman.
My take on the expression is that it refers to extreme activism which seeks to deny fact, dictate the way we think and feel and demand obedience, with threats of retribution, to their cause….
I agree. The extremes of the ‘woke’ intelligentsia who ‘demand’ that we think the ‘right way’ – i.e. ‘their way’ is akin to the secret police employed by all dictators.
Duplicated comment deleted
What exactly is an ‘extreme wokeist’? And how exactly do their crimes compare to, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?
Duplicated comment deleted
Who will rid us of the glory seeking narcissists who claim to be selfless, heroic liberators & defenders, but are the very opposite. Those who ignore learning, history, and the lives and welfare of their own people… because the power excites them: Stalin, Mao, Bush Jr, Pol Pot, the IRA, UDA, al-Zarqawi, Putin, and to a lesser extent, closer to home, the extreme wokeists.
A good read. I must, however, object to the characterization of suicide bombers.
Describing them as “martyred” in the passive voice may reflect the views of some Iraqis, but from any decent moral lens these men should be regarded as wretched, religiously-motivated suicidees who typically cared little about collateral damage to innocents.
What kind of reaction would we have if a Christian in the US or Europe blew himself up in the middle of a crowded nightclub out of religious zeal? Most people would not say that man was “martyred”.
A good read. I must, however, object to the characterization of suicide bombers.
Describing them as “martyred” in the passive voice may reflect the views of some Iraqis, but from any decent moral lens these men should be regarded as wretched, religiously-motivated suicidees who typically cared little about collateral damage to innocents.
What kind of reaction would we have if a Christian in the US or Europe blew himself up in the middle of a crowded nightclub out of religious zeal? Most people would not say that man was “martyred”.
I place much blame on Bremmer and the unwise discharge of people who knew how to keep the lights working. The corruption of Saddam was mostly within a smaller group and the religious issues could have been better managed had the US not interfered. Don’t know why propaganda techniques were not used to avoid Iran meddling when it became obvious of the exploitation of religion.