Not really the point I was trying to make. But we could say, that is a situation where we have cycles of violence and increasing terror, replicating itself out of a series of actions that do date back to original decision to go to war with Iraq in 2004.

If the enemy conceal themselves in or around the population, you have to decide whether to accept increased military ground casualties, or increased civilian casualties (and hope that you're hitting the enemy in the process).

That's the problem of war you're getting into impossible areas of ethics. And that decision to go to war, should never be taken lightly or for political advantage. In WWII the UK seemed to do everything it could to avoid a war with Germany. With Iraq, it did everything it could to justify a war with Iraq.

Is the life of a UK solider worth more than an Iraqi civilian. If so, why did we invade in the first place? - Iraq was never a threat to UK sovereignty or interests. Once your in a war, you're unleashing a terrible beast, because you have to make that decision.

And of course, for the UK government, Iraqi civilians aren't as important as UK Soldiers, because Iraqi civilians don't affect elections back home (and I think when you follow this kind of thinking back to its ultimate conclusion you end up with people driving cars over people on west minster bridge and stabbing police officers - to bring 'the war back home').

And it comes down to accountability. Blair knew he'd never be held accountable - and used a lot of military actions to 'create a legacy' for himself, and we let him.

Is Iraq only having to take back it cities, because of actions who's basis stretch back to a decision taken in 2004?

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yep, Jamie has gone off the page.

In both the States and the UK...we had Jerry Springer: The Opera....We have had plays like Corpus Christi depicting Jesus and the apostles as gay.

Mmmm....Any terrible crimes been committed?

I mean, for sure, those Christian rednecks are a sandwich short of a picnic...but I think maybe Jamie has caught a little bit of the anti Trump hysteria......'Mike Pence....the evil one' perhaps.

I wonder just how many of them are still 'literally shaking'?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I have seen nothing to support that view.

What is the source of this surging Evangelism?

I think ultimately, there is no choice - once you've opened the door to war and the consequences associated. My concern is how readily we accepted, as a nation, war as foreign policy.

Of course the events in Iraq could have played out the same if we hadn't invaded, or been worse. I guess the ethical point would be that they wouldn't have been our fault.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

So are we talking gangs of Jehovah's witnesses or Scientologists roaming the streets?

I believe that we have allowed foreign influences mainly in the form of religion to infiltrate this country. It happened with the Catholicism in the recent past and now with a number of other religions.
We suppressed religious power in this country to the extent that we became a progressive world leader but we are in danger of allowing undesirable influences to get a foothold again.

This has to stop.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Mar 2017 12.43pm)

Similar to what happened with Sgt Blackman. Essentially committed murder and broke the Geneva convention. Even said that after he quoted Shakespeare and executed the wounded enemy behind the shed so the chopper couldn't see. Then said 'lads keep this quiet obviously I have just broken the Geneva convention'. That's murder however you slice it and the reason he was let off was because there was only really pressure from the gallery to have the ruling quashed, there wasn't really any noise to keep the ruling so the judge was pretty weak and gave the only ruling that they could without being villified.

Therin lies the problem with prosecuting war crimes, the people who commit them tend to not see them as war crimes. The Royal Marines are part of the most professional army in the world and him using stress as an excuse to commit this crime is an insult to the integrity of thousands of other marines who don't murder people. The first ruling was a testament to the pedestal our forces sit on, they are held to a higher standerd then others and I think this overturning sets a dangerous precedent and was wrong.

Bit of a tangent there but war crimes and the trials of them are difficult and there isn't really a public desire to see your soldiers in the docks.