The British Invasion

[Nomad]

(This one was with God on their side)

The Other "Gulf War"—The British Invasion of Iraq in 1941

The present debate over "regime change" in Iraq conceals a little known irony—it offers a cast of characters and a reprise of arguments that shaped an earlier invasion of that country. The invasion in question was not the Gulf War of 1991—rather, it was the British invasion of 1941.
In May 1941, in the midst of a World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his reluctant Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to march on Baghdad to effect a "regime change." The British Prime Minister's arguments reflected many of those same concerns expressed today by members of the George W. Bush administration: British intervention would "pre-empt" Axis support for Rachid Ali, a violently anti-British Arab nationalist whose government threatened Britain's strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It would strike a blow at a terrorist challenge orchestrated by a charismatic Islamic cleric. British intervention also would protect oil reserves vital to the British war effort. Furthermore, Churchill was willing to wave aside offers of third-party mediation in favor of a "unilateralist" approach. Conversely, Wavell's arguments against an invasion of Iraq mirrored contemporary objections—he simply lacked the resources to add Iraq to an impossibly extensive list of military commitments. A military attack, Wavell believed, would make Britain's position in the Middle East less, not more, secure. Better let sleeping dogs lie and take care of pressing business elsewhere.


CCC - War Against Iraq: The British Invasion of 1941

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Nomad

(This one was with God on their side)

The Other "Gulf War"—The British Invasion of Iraq in 1941

The present debate over "regime change" in Iraq conceals a little known irony—it offers a cast of characters and a reprise of arguments that shaped an earlier invasion of that country. The invasion in question was not the Gulf War of 1991—rather, it was the British invasion of 1941.
In May 1941, in the midst of a World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill ordered his reluctant Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Sir Archibald Wavell, to march on Baghdad to effect a "regime change." The British Prime Minister's arguments reflected many of those same concerns expressed today by members of the George W. Bush administration: British intervention would "pre-empt" Axis support for Rachid Ali, a violently anti-British Arab nationalist whose government threatened Britain's strategic position in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. It would strike a blow at a terrorist challenge orchestrated by a charismatic Islamic cleric. British intervention also would protect oil reserves vital to the British war effort. Furthermore, Churchill was willing to wave aside offers of third-party mediation in favor of a "unilateralist" approach. Conversely, Wavell's arguments against an invasion of Iraq mirrored contemporary objections—he simply lacked the resources to add Iraq to an impossibly extensive list of military commitments. A military attack, Wavell believed, would make Britain's position in the Middle East less, not more, secure. Better let sleeping dogs lie and take care of pressing business elsewhere.


CCC - War Against Iraq: The British Invasion of 1941

It was wartime we needed the oil what do you expect us to do? What makes you think that was the first time we invaded iraq? we did it in ww1 as well when it was part of the ottoman empire. Saddam wasn't the first to drop chemical weapons on the iraqis-it was the british.

The thing is in the year 2009 is it still the correct thing to do to behave like an imperial power-which is what we were doing.

[Nomad]

Its a directive in hypocricy for those that are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own countries actions.
Its a defense in the name of fairness and reality.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Its a directive in hypocricy for those that are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own countries actions.
Its a defense in the name of fairness and reality.

Let's get this straight, this is the middle of World War Two, Iraq's one of the main British supply points for oil and gas along with the Iranian fields, it's a major hopping-stone for planes between the Indian theatre and the UK, there's a German/Italian Axis-backed coup in Iraq which brings in a German air squadron to try to expel the British and divert Iraqi fuel to Axis forces for the remainder of the war and you criticize us for suppressing the coup and re-installing the previous government?

What on earth does that have to do with occupying a country and overthrowing a popular government-in-being during peacetime when they're of no possible threat to your homeland?

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Its a directive in hypocricy for those that are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own countries actions.
Its a defense in the name of fairness and reality.

No British poster-unless a complete pillock would argue that we were otherwise than an imperialist nation. Good grief we even called it the British Empire

Why just pick on 1941

::Air Marshall Arthur Harris::

In 1919, Harris became a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force. In this capacity, he served throughout the British Empire (India, Iraq, Iran and the Middle East) during the 1920's and the early 1930's. During this time, the RAF used bombing raids against tribes people in Iraq who had rebelled against British rule. Some of these raids included the use of poison gas and delayed action bombs. Some in the RAF were appalled by this (Air Commodore Lionel Charlton resigned his commission regarding this) but Harris said:

"The only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand."

In 1933, Harris was appointed as Deputy Director of Plans in the Air Ministry - a post he held until 1937. During this time, relations with Germany became strained and Harris produced a document on what part the RAF could play in a war against Germany.

I would suggest you have a look at what america was up to during the same period-start with the Philippines and Hawaii-or indeed the continental united states itself-you didn't exactly move in to land that wasn't already occupied. , thirteen states to 50 the US is an imperial power in all but name. Just because you didn't call it an empire doesn't make it seem better to those who were conquered. Manifest destiny you called it.

Manifest Destiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term was first used primarily by Jacksonian Democrats in the 1840s to promote the annexation of much of what is now the Western United States (the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession). It was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.[2]

The thing is we all know about this we were an imperialist nation it's not as though we pretend it didn't happen or our motives were exactly honourable-it was the naked exercise of military power of which we are entirely aware. Of course we accept responsibility for it-indeed we are rather proud of our history we just don't look at it with rose tinted spectacles. While you're at it you could point out we also invented concentration camps, started the slave trade and waged war on german cities in a way that made all previous bombing campaigns look amateurish-you learned from us not the other way round.

However, while we are well aware the part past actions are responsible for the way things are in the middle east you seem to be incapable of understanding that the same applies to american actions as well. For instance If the US hadn't helped the mujadadeen defeat the russians the talban would have remained an ocscure sect of religious fundamentalisist . If they hadn't helped saddam so much in the iran iraq war he might have lost out to iran. If the saudis hadn't encourages Wahhabism in preference to allowing democracy a chance maybe we wouldn't have muslim terrorists -who knows. What if's don't really go anywhere

Pointing it out isn't hypocrisy it's trying to get you to understand that what is happening now has it's roots in the past and doesn't spring up out of nowhere. keeping making the same mistakes won't solve anything neither will accepting everything you are told by your government unquestioningly.

It's hardly hypocrisy to point out the same kind of thing is still happening and we are all to well aware of the UK's part in it. If you really want me to I can provide plenty of links detailing the part we paid in overthrowing the democratic regimes in iraq and iran and libya, how we tried to invade egypt to protect the suez canal along with the french all in order to protect our oil interests-a failure on our part to accept the great game was over and that a bankrupt imperial power is actually no longer a major power.

The war in Iraq is something to which an increasing number of people in the UK are deeply opposed-even those who got taken in by the claims of WMD's at the beginning. I think in large part it was a reluctance to believe that out politicians were capable of lying on such a grand scale and latterly disbelief that we have been so gullible and feel powerless top sort the bastards out. We will though we always do.

It does seem you don't know your own history very well though.

The thing is in the year 2009 is it still the correct thing to do to behave like an imperial power-which is what we were doing back in 1941 and before. Should america be doing it in the 21st century? That is the real issue now.

[Nomad]

[quote=spot;1161666]Let's get this straight, this is the middle of World War Two, Iraq's one of the main British supply points for oil and gas along with the Iranian fields, it's a major hopping-stone for planes between the Indian theatre and the UK, there's a German/Italian Axis-backed coup in

Iraq which brings in a German air squadron to try to expel the British and divert Iraqi fuel to Axis forces for the remainder of the war and you criticize us for suppressing the coup and re-installing the previous government?

Hmm... Im sensing selective reasoning.
Im sorry. my understanding from your statements recently indicated sovereign nations are off limits to outside countries for self serving details. You said something to the effect of let them wipe their own asses. (I took liberty)
Did I misunderstand ?

What on earth does that have to do with occupying a country and overthrowing a popular government-in-being during peacetime when they're of no possible threat to your homeland?

The threat was based in Afganistan at the time. Thats was a fairly fundamental consensus among the worlds leaders.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Nomad

The threat was based in Afganistan at the time. Thats was a fairly fundamental consensus among the worlds leaders.

No, that's a fairly fundamental consensus amongst American leaders who gave the Afghan government three weeks to do what America has failed to do in seven years - capture and hand over Osama Bin Laden.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Hmm... Im sensing selective reasoning.
Im sorry. my understanding from your statements recently indicated sovereign nations are off limits to outside countries for self serving details. You said something to the effect of let them wipe their own asses. (I took liberty)
Did I misunderstand ?




The threat was based in Afganistan at the time. Thats was a fairly fundamental consensus among the worlds leaders.

There was no threat to the US homeland from Afghanistan. Nor, in my opinion, to any other country, but the test is threat to homeland.

The Iraqi coup brought in a provisional government which invited German and Italian air force squadrons into Iraq, to use Iraqi airfields to secure the oilwells for the use of the Axis powers by attacking British air bases and facilities, all this during wartime. It's an act of war by an unfriendly foreign government, of course the British are going to react.

The US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was completely unjustified and completely unprovoked. The Afghan government was given no alternative, the bombing and occupation was a dreadful breach of any civilized norm. You-all had a policing problem, you-all could perfectly well have had Osama bin Laden handed into US custody if you-all had applied for it, you-all did nothing of the sort. How can you pretend you've benefited in any way from what you-all did?