(20.4.04 13:05) I'm really pleased to read this by someone who was there, who went there with one set of views and has had them changed. The whole thing was built on shifting sands, the political arguments never stacked up and the moral arguments didn't exist. It seemed that if one didn't agree with troops going in then one sided with the Sadam regime....and it was a lot more complex than that. It's interesting to see how it's changed your view.

(20.4.04 13:32) Nicely put BlackRat. A guy that works at our place has just returned from a stint with the TA and his 'personal' view stacks with yours totally. He gave a personal unbiased chat/presentation to anyone that wanted to listen along with some pictures that he took while off-duty. He was originally 'for' the war and the ousting of Saddam. But since his return from the dessert he's now a changed man. He too simply says' "we don't belong there".

(20.4.04 21:13) I was also for the war last year, believing that nothing could be worse than Saddam. Since then I 've grown very disillusioned with the way the war's aftermath was handled, and sickened by the war profiteering. I hope Kerry wins this fall.

(20.4.04 23:05) What an enlightening post, blackrat! It is really interesting to see how your point of view has changed and the new questions and conclusions your stay in Iraq brought about. I am from Argentina, so we know what dictators and dictatorships mean, and we also see the war and Bush and so on from a different perspective. The USA and their allies definitely want oil,and the USA is a self-appointed world policeman who invades and conquers at will. To my mind the war is not over, and the enemy....who's the enemy here? I can't answer that question, I am afraid. Thanks again for sharing all this with us.

(20.4.04 23:36) Best post you've ever made..... welcome to the Other Side.

(20.4.04 23:43) well done, good points, well put over

(21.4.04 01:37) thanks for the words and the pictures BR. i notice you like to use the word prosecute. good word. i think we've fucked up in iraq since way before the first gulf war. We've reduced a once grand country to a place reminiscent of the middle-ages and we owe it to the Iraqis to help sort it out. The best thing Blair can do is help to tug on Bush' sleeve and remind him that the world is watching him and expecting more.

M (21.4.04 02:01) I'm finding it incredibly difficult to suppress feelings of resentment and loathing toward Americans as a result of the Iraq situation. I'm also very tired of their 'gung-ho we're so fucking great' attitude which I have to continually remind myself is probably not the view shared by all Americans. I don't know if you ever read the report by the Middle East Centre for Strategic Studies pertaining to the 'Domino effect' and the toppling of the Ba'ath/Saddam regime? I'd recommend it as a thought provoking insight into the strategic removal of Saddam's regime to the region as a whole. The support for Sharon in Israel probably doesn't need to be spelt out either. It's a shame that America has selective attention when it comes to issues and conflicts in which it will involve itself and I genuinely believe that come handover, the Iraqi people will be in a far worse position now lacking the structure of democratically instituted state.

(21.4.04 05:25) I'm forever grateful to our [Canada's] former PM Jean Chretien for staying off the Iraqi war bandwagon. And by doing so he obeyed the wishes of the citizens - democracy in action. The US of A's leaders should try it sometime. (I hope they have their voting tabulation system fixed by November.)

(21.4.04 05:26) While at first this "gung ho we're so fucking great" American was a bit upset, because you forget one thing, millions of Americans DO KNOW what it is like...and it started with the Spanish, British and French. They still occupy and impose rules that go against many of our beliefs. While the US GOVERNMENT is 200 years old, my people have been here and have a culture that spans millenia. Did you know that the British imposed a still standing law that states my American citizenship can be revoked at any time? All it takes is some foreign idiot to put in a complaint. And, yes, it still happens. Or that foreign countries still routinely take land that was promised to us? The British have been especially quick at it lately. The general culture of America is what we had to make of the people that ran from the governments that are constantly upheld as wonderful examples in this conflict, and they are still begging for visas. I can name a few British that loathe the thought of being sent back, as well as those from many other countries. There is an Iraqi where I work. She was born and raised in Baghdad. Having been 'imported' a mere five years ago, and she has vivid memories. She is confused and mixed up about the whole mess. While I don't think we should have started this war, I do know they should have taken out Saddam during Desert Storm when the world was screaming at us to interfere. Or is this forgotten? Or is it forgotten that America is not self appointed...anytime something comes up, other countries (Western Europeans included) start yelling at us to (WWII comes to immediate mind)help. Clinton didn't want to go to Kosovo...we are still there, still losing soldiers, still using precious money...for a country that the world kept begging us to help, and there is still no way to gracefully back out. What about Somalia? I have been stating for going on fifteen years now that America needs to close its borders, and work on us, and quit going to places that the world asks us to help, because in the end, we are called "self appointed policemen," "gung ho we're so fucking great," among many other things. I do agree, we need to ensure that the Iraqi's should be running their own country. (Just for the record - please remember America is NOT a democracy - it is a Congressional Republic) In their way, using their people. The sooner the better.

(21.4.04 06:10) Well said, Ms. Attitude! America is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. When there is a great need somewhere in the world, what is the first nation that is expected to step up? As for the American presence in Iraq - I don't know many Americans who agree with how the action has proceeded and everyone I know is looking forward to elections in November. Still, a lot of the world finds it "difficult to suppress feelings of resentment and loathing toward Americans." Those who feel that way should try to make a distinction between the everyday American citizen and the US government. After all, these same people are more than willing to make the distinction between the corrupt despot who governed Iraq and its lovely people. I'm left to wonder if some small part of that fierce national pride we Americans are said to hold is a result of our David's victory over the tyrannical Goliath during the American Revolutionary War. LOL! I may just start another war if I comment further. PS: I read with great interest the account from peace activist Jo Wilding and forwarded the link on to numerous email contacts in my address book. She's a very courageous person with great love for her fellow human being.

(21.4.04 11:01) Two thoughts: First, I doubt there are many on this particular blogsite that confuse ordinary decent Americans and the Bush / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz axis. And second the great tragedy in all of this is US militarism has profoundly damaged UN leadership on the Iraq situation. That was a narrow and self absorbed act, and has done serious harm to any short- to mid-term chances of peace in the region.

M (21.4.04 11:50) American Attitude, BBR - apologies to you both for the sweeping, throw away generalisation which masks the full extent of my views. In truth, it was a bit thoughtless and an idle swipe to make and I should have framed my comment better. In brief response to your points AA, yes, I am aware of the revocation act but that was atypical of empire building Britain wasn't it? Britannia waives the rules, again. My country is strewn with the vestiges of similarly idiotic and defunct colonial law. I'm not saying Britain or any other country is perfect or blameless in sources of conflict, governance or Iraq for that matter either and I'm a vocal critic of Blair/Labour and his stance on Iraq. Saddam's position as an Arab nationalist was fortified by US failure to remove him in 1991 but his death would have merely elevated him to martyrdom. You're damned if you do and... I've read a lot of 'Would Sept 11th have happened?' type articles founded on the notion that non removal of Saddam in 1991 exerted a destabilising influence on the Arab region and for Islamic fundamentalists in particular. Certainly thought provoking. I merely have views not answers unfortunately but it just beggars belief that more foresight had not been applied to the Iraq situation by ALL parties involved. Funnily enough, a few years ago I was at the Oxford Union to hear Clinton speak and a fellow student asked him about Kosovo and US involvement in similar arenas. I was struck by the eloquence of his response and the essence of what he said was that the US by sheer scale was expected to act as a responsible 'big brother' within the global community. All too frequently, cases requiring intervention had to be dismissed for matters pecuniary or politic and he expressed reservations about the fact that many nations hold views of the US being this vast reserve of bottomless wealth. His main comment focused on the importance of effective US leadership in balancing US internal and global affairs which ties to your point about US affairs AA. It's a shame that effective leadership falls on the shoulders of Dubaya but then again, there were question marks over his presidential victory too but I'm not going to go there.

(21.4.04 18:31) Whatever Sadam has done, the people of Iraq shall never deserve this war.I am really happy to read that how your mind has changed, and I hope those who have the power in their hands will also be able to understand and giving mercy.

(22.4.04 00:19) Blackrat. Thanks that is unquestionably the best blog post I have ever read. I agree with you copmpletley. Points well raised and well explored. American Attitude, I think that america has more power to do good in the world than any other nation, and it does a huge amound of good which gets unfairly overlooked, esspecially with some of the american internation aid programs. But they aren't some superhero saviours of world peace, they are just like the rest of us, only they have the larger capacity to cause change. We're all in the global community together though. At the end of the day I know how you feel being judged by the actions of your government, we are frequently judged by the actions of past governments, going back 100's of years. Join the club ;-) Just one point though, with all respect, please dont even imply that WW2 was joined for anything other than pearl harbour. This is really offensive our country. Britain had already passed through it's darkest hour standing alone, and I can't accept the implication that we were saved by America. We were helped, for which we are grateful, but we had already seen off the prospects of Nazi invasion, it was then the combination of those two powers and the soviets that saved europe.

(22.4.04 10:18) Heather: I guess I never appreciated how subjective my viewpoint on Iraq had become until I actually arrived there and saw the dichotomy between my views and the reality. Blue Pixel: Your colleague's experience seems to be in accord with that of most of the British soldiers that I met out there - and not just the officers. The attitude amongst rank and file soldiers was overwhelmingly against our being there. Heraldblog: One very much gets the impression that there was no coherent plan by the US for the immediate aftermath of the war and they are now paying the price for that. BBC correspondent Rageh Omar, who stayed in Baghdad throughout the conflict says in his account of the war and its aftermath, "The process of establishing order and the structures of civil society after the conflict was not going to be helped by the complete lack of any central authority in Baghdad. Behind the tanks of the American marines and infantry soldiers that rumbled into the capital there was little sign of the political personnel needed to start co-ordinating the reconstruction of city life. 'Regime Change' had become a mysterious process. The regime was gone, but there was not much sense of what was to follow, certainly amongst the inhabitants of Baghdad. The only people 'in charge' after the city's fall were the detachments of US troops - and they were in charge only of the areas where they were positioned". He continues, "Af four o'clock on the afternoon of 10 April, 2003, 200 yards from a branch of the Central Bank of Iraq on the eastern side of the Tigris, the man 'in charge' was Sergeant Timothy Funk of the US Marines whose unit was manning a checkpoint which was mostly on the look out for 'remnants of the regime'. Up the road groups of looters were trying to break into the bank. I asked Sgt. Funk if he didn't think that this kind of destruction of state buildings and offices should be stopped. "It's discgraceful and it shouldn't be happening, I agree with you", he said, "but we just don't have the manpower to prevent it and to be honest with you, the looters just aren't a military problem and they're not a direct threat. This ain't a job for us, getting the bad guys that are still out there is"". The lack of planning for the war's immediate aftermath was not just a military disaster, it was a political one too. As the widespread looting and ransacking of the buildings and ministries necessary for the Coalition to successfully and seamelessly take over the running of the country continued unchecked in what many believe to be a 'scorched earth' policy by elements loyal to Saddam, the joy that many Iraqis felt at the collapse of the regime quickly turned to bewidlerment and anger at the Americans. I suspect American voters will have their say come November and show Bush just what they think of the 'just war' he's prosecuted in their name. MJinBaires: Thanks for your kind comments - Did you grow up under Galtieri's regime? Jack Dalton: Thank you! Princess Fairytoes: Thank you, too! Roach: Good points well made. We fucked up in Iraq in 1921 when British Army General Francis Maude staked his claim on the land his men had wrested from the Ottoman Turks. We fucked it up again in our implicit support for Saddam through the darkest years of the regime, again in 1991 with our botched attempt at overthrowing him then, and we've really iced the cake with our efforts in Gulf War II and its aftermath. At the CPA in Baghdad, the British are largely ignored by Bremer, kept out of the loop in decision making and not included on many issues where our views differ from those of the Bush administration. Sources at the CPA tell me that the British are seen "very much as irrelevance by Bremer. Basically, if you can't get votes for Bush back home, your opinions and counsel are of no value to us". Mukiwa: A sweeping generalisation but one which is perfectly udnerstandable, if not entirely warranted. I found myself experiencing similar feelings, especially in Baghdad where the 'corporate mentality' of the US was at odds with the individual soldiers I encountered. The Green Zone in Baghdad is like a piece of America - ignore the architecture and you could easily believe you were in anytown, USA. The shops sell American products, take only US Dollars, the radio stations play American songs introduced by American DJs. The population is 90% American, so the pervasive, creeping Americanisation of the city is beginning to follow. The Iraqi kids who hawk stuff to the soldiers are picking up American mannerisms and colloquialisms and there's an overwhelming sense of "This is the American Way and it's the only way" about the place. Sadly, it's not just the US which has a 'corporate image' at odds which is anathema to the majority of the population - Us Brits don't have the best of reputations in those European cities and resorts where out football teams play. But whilst that view of us as a nation might not be entirely accurate, it's also not entirely wrong - and so it is with the US. BigFatBlackCat: Chretien did was Blair should have done but didn't have the integrity to do. To some degree, I can understand what I believe are Bush's reasons for going to war, even if I don't agree with them. What I can't understand is Blair's unswerving support.

(22.4.04 11:51) AA: Bloody hell, girl, that's some simmering resentment if you're still blaming Britain for events prior to your country's independence. And if the British imposed a law that states your American citizenship can be revoked at any time, why is it still standing? Surely you need to look to your own constitution, your own government as a target for your sense of injustice? And should the US have taken Saddam out in 1991? I really don't know any longer. There is an argument that iraq had rightful claim over the oilfields in northern Kuwait and had his attempts at empire building stopped there, we'd never have gone to war in the first place. The US was more than happy to support him prior to that point, both with financial assistance (The Washington Post reported in January 1984 that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”) and through supplying the helicopters which Saddam later used. Then in 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.” In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.” In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House. Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special. And how can you even begin to draw a comparison between the Gulf Wars, and our pleas to the US for assistance in saving the free world from the threat posed by Hitler? It's questionable that the US would have entered WWII at all were it not for the attack on her own borders by Japan. And Bush's true reasons for removing Saddam might never be disclosed, but I am reasonably sure that they had nothing to do with benefiting the people of Iraq. That may have been a side effect of his policy, but altruism has no place in the Bush Administration's foreign policy. I understand your frustration but I think most right thinking people can make the distinction between the American people as a whole and the 'questionably elected' president and his adminisitration who purports to act in their name. It seems we're all in the same boat where our governments are concerned - the US and British governments fighting a war against the Iraqi government. Except it didn't work out like that. If Bush's gripe was with Saddam, there were myriad options available to unseat him from power - repeated aerial bombardment of the capital and the inevitable death of so many civillians as 'an unfortunate side-effect' were never going to add credence to that argument. By the way, if you founf Jo Wilding's last report on Falluja enlighenting, check out her latest account which she filed just two days ago. I spoke to her just last week to arrange a meeting for when she arrives back in the UK - her story needs to be told. Jack Dalton: Well said, fella - although nothing the UN doesn't need to US to damage the credibility of its leadership - it's more than capable of fucking things up of its own accord. The UN's damaging policy of sanctions which it persisted with despite clear evidence that it was destroying those it purported to support and benefiting those it wanted to target was the single most catastrophic event to befall ordinary Iraqis in modern history. Angela on the River: Thank you for taking the time to visit my blog and comment - and thank you too for the sweetie. Couldn't agree more, the people of Iraq deserve so much better than what we have 'gifted' to them. PeterJ: Your comments to AA accord nicely with my own view - there seems to be a danger of history painting America as the saviour of the free world in WWII, especailly if Hollywood is to be believed. We have only ourselves to thank for keeping the Nazis at bay in the years 1939-1941, and it was down to the courage and tenacity of the RAF's pilots during the Battle of Britain that Hitler was never able to launch an invasion of our shores. Thanks for the sweetie, and the kind comments - much appreciated.

(22.4.04 12:04) I take your point on UN leadership. But there is an interesting twist on this one... the direction of the UN rests primarily - whether we like it or not - with the permanent members of the Security Council, not the general assembly. And if my memory serves me correctly, the loudest clamouring for sanctions and the voice loudest in support of retaining these was the US. A case of playing when it suits and taking the ball home when it doesn't, perhaps?

(22.4.04 13:32) Thanks Ratty, I think that the resistance of this country in 39-41 was truly miraculous, the more I read the more I am in awe that we stood, on our own and defended ourselves against all odds. The RAF truly saved not only Britain, but western civilsation as we know it, if we had fallen the Hitler would have thrown everything at Barbarossa, and quite possibly established his empire beyoned anything any country could do to stop it. American Attitude, one more minor point. You seme to be saying that America was being oppressedby The European imperial powers, but let's remember, the people being governed by us at the time were immigrants from Europe anyway. If we were going to be fair about things the country belons to the Native Americans.

(22.4.04 16:42) BlackRat: The British certainly withstood the bombing with courage, but just to remind you that Canada's troops were there in large number, ready & waiting. There was uncertainty as to the overall British military plan and we were left to cool our heels and sink in the frustrating mud on Salisbury Plain for 2 years. I'm sure that there were other countries' troops in similar circumstances during that time. The British (and French, Polish, etc) had a LOT of help during WW1 and WW2, even though the high numbers of bodies required (ie the US) didn't come forward until much later. Canada was eager to jump in to defend either or both of her mother countries. And would gladly do so again, without question. Rah!

(22.4.04 19:23) BigFatBlackCat, true, not only were the Canadians ready, but the Canadian navy was helping us in the atlantic in a military capacity long before the USA joined the war. Top country!

(22.4.04 21:28) Jack: Absolutely spot on, fella. And guess which nations moaned loudest and grew most impatient in the face of sanctions' inability to deliver Saddam's capitulation? Washington and London. Peter: That period of our history holds as being one of our most glorious as well as our darkest, the courage of our grandparents an inspiration. BigFatBlackCat: I omitted to mention the regard in which many of us hold Canada, our greatest ally across the Atlantic through so much of our troubled history. The free French, the Poles, Czechs and others who fled the invading German army had little choice but to join us - Canada had no such motivation, but she was there throughout.

(23.4.04 02:15) I appreciate your comments - I only wanted to point out that Britain was far from alone during the earliest days of WW2, although it must have seemed otherwise at times! Most of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany directly after Britain did, and were on the spot soon after. And no denigration to Britain re the military confusion - with the Nazi steamroller there was little anyone could do. So the ground troops from all over the world gathered and waited for an opportunity.

(23.4.04 04:27) What I find interesting is that this blog felt it was justified for Uday to feed his lions raped women and abused men and children simply because some of the Iraqi's had stability, funny how many felt that way about Hitler in the beginning too - it was OK because he wasn't really more than an annoying fly. I find it interesting that England was indeed "holding Hitler at bay" but forgot to add that almost 10,000 American troops were helping out (Prior to Pearl Harbor - which by the way, sent us fighting JAPAN, not Hitler. It wasn't until several Jewish organizations made it well known to the public about the genocide. THEN more troops were sent to fight with Hitler). I also find it very interesting that the Washinton Post had an article outlining how France, Germany and Russia were making billions in contracts with Saddam, or the fact that the UN is currently doing an investigation. I also find it interesting that a few say that a distinction is made between the US Gov and American citizens, yet many blogs, articles and comments prove otherwise. I also find it extremely interesting that it is assumed I agree with our second invasion of Iraq. I could go on how this is a subject extremely close to me, because while I am no longer married to a soldier, I retained many of the friendships I formed over the 7 years I was. My daughter's stepmother emails me daily, begging me to say a prayer that her brother will get home safe a second time from Iraq. A very good friend and coworker updates me regularly about her son, who returned for a month before he is to be shipped back. I go through my email hoping I don't have news of another person I spent a wonderful weekend relaxing with, babysat their children, or in the case of one Pvt, babsat him, dead and his body should arrive within the week for burial. I am sick of my taxes paying for a fight we should never have entered. I am sick of my countrymen being slammed for something they didn't want in the first place. Kuwait was UN sanctioned, and it was the UN who asked us to interfere. And that was the WORLD throwing fits about the oil. As Rose said, America is damned no matter what she does. The world looks down on us as children, but expects our money and our troops to be the adults and do as the world leaders directs us to. Heaven forbid if we don't ask permission from the world leaders to do something. Pretty soon citizens in other countries will be saying we should ask permission to wipe our own ass, but could we hand out a check for several billion so another country can pay off its debts, and we wouldn't mind forgiving that debt, would we? And while we are toddling about the world, would we mind sending our family members over to that country which can't take care of its own matters? We wouldn't mind losing many of ours would we? After all, we can't send in the old men from European countries to do the work and lose the money and people. I would also like to point out - America DOES have people in Central and South America fighting wars. We DO have people in Africa. But I did not see the world weeping at what happened in Somalia after the UN again asked us to sacrifice our own. Burning resentment? No, it was in response to your flippant remark: "being dictated to by the US any more than the average US or UK citizen would were the roles reversed. Let me ask you this - if the roles were reversed, would you be arguing the case from the comfort of your armchair and writing letters to the editor of your preferred broadsheet newspaper in between wringing your hands? Or would you have taken up arms against those you saw as the unlawful invaders occupying the land you love, those who had caused the deaths of your sons and daughters, but explained them away as "collateral damage?" :: Your very own people (Who do you think started over running my country first?) did this to us, and managed to wipe out a full 90% of our population within 100 years. But we were just collateral damage. And some of the old laws cannot be removed. I know you do not understand, and probably have a few remarks at the ready for me. Just remember, a journalist worth his salt gets all the facts before reporting them, and a few are missing. There are more than 13,000 years worth of history here - spanning some 100 separate nationalities. And that is PRIOR to Columbus setting foot in the Caribbean. In conclusion - I am all for Iraq for the Iraqi's...on THEIR terms, not the worlds - not European, not UN - IRAQ's. I think that they should be able to make their own damn decisions, not a dictators. I think this mess is made, but don't lay all the blame at my government's doorstep...your very own government was right there, holding our hand.

(23.4.04 04:36) M: Thank you. it is the sweeping generalizations that get me started. PeterJ: You are right, this country belongs to me. :-) I have a pedigree any well papered dog would be envious of so that my lineage is outlined for "posterity." Bollocks. And I am a big proponent of Native rights. Want to see that Americans are aware of how Iraqi's feel? Visit a rez. See the realities.

(23.4.04 12:38) AA: How the hell do you draw the conclusion that because I am against the war, that many Iraqis felt better off under Saddam and that they had greater stability under his regime, that I by extension, felt it was jsutified for Uday to act in the manner he did? Using that sort of warped logic, it's safe to assume that because you are against the war, you therefore supported Uday's behaviour. You're quite right, France, Germany and Russia were all trading with Saddam as the US was, but none of them were pushing the UN for a mandate to have him removed like the US and UK were. I'd also draw your attention to the fact that of the permanent members of the UN security council, it was the US, followed by Blair who was baying loudest for war on Saddam. The UN isn't a disembodied organisation, it is representative of nation states and their governments, so if the UN security council decides to act, it is acting upon the majority wishes of those members. The fact that the US has assets in various cntral and south American nations doesn't make it right - for starters, the US supported many of the dictators that it has later sought to remove (Noriega, anyone?) and your government has also acted unilaterally in previous conflicts. Being the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world carries certain responsibilities with it, so it's no use bithcing when your governemnt is called upon for assitance. But that power needs to be wielded responsibly, and with objectivity - and sadly, that's been noticeably lacking of late. It's part of living in a free society that people have the right to criticise the US if they don't think it's acted appropriately. And sure, us British have centuries of blood on our hands, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what our forefathers did through history. We were often wrong, but you can't change the past - it's how you live the future that matters. And I'm as critical of my own government as I am of yours - more so in fact since we had no reason to be there. The fact that Blair was holding Bush's hand doesn't make the war any more palatable.

(23.4.04 13:34) American Attitude. -Could I ask, wgere the 10,000 american troops were deployed? Just curious as it was mainly the RN, RCN, and the RAF that was fending off Hitler, with its international contingent of pilots, the USA was one of the lowest contributors. 26 I belive. -America was selling to Saddam to, just ask Donald RUmsfeld, who was actually there doing the deal once. Oh, and it was chemicals, how strangely co-incidental. Like Blackrat, I am totally critical of the UK gov as well as the US Gov, but the point is that the UN could work, if certain countries didnt just do as they please anyway. It was countries doing whatever they pleased, or refusing to be involved that cursed the league of nations and left it powerless to prevent ww2, or even enforce the treaty it was founded upon. Not that this would matter, being that the USA, after helping define the treaty, refused to ratify it.

(23.4.04 15:12) The RCAF in WW2 - yes I'm still on this subject! Britain wasn't alone in the air, either... One of the peculiarities of the RCAF experience was the manner in which its personnel were scattered throughout British formations. In the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan Agreement of December 1939, the Canadian government had insisted that RCAF personnel posted overseas should be incorporated into distinctly Canadian squadrons. In practice, British indifference to "Dominion" units and Canadian deference to British operational imperatives slowed the pace of "Canadian-ization". The fact that Canada, until late 1942, paid only a portion of RCAF costs overseas (with Britain paying the rest) weakened arguments in favour of Canadianization. As a result, approximately 60 percent of all RCAF personnel serving overseas spent some or all of their careers in British rather than in Canadian units. That group, known to many as "The Lost Legion", has been the most difficult to chronicle, as their operational records are part of RAF, rather than RCAF, documents. Only after Canada assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for its air forces overseas, was the government able to exert effective pressure for Canadians to be posted to the 47 RCAF squadrons eventually sent overseas. Even then, large numbers of RCAF personnel continued to serve in British units. Altogether, nearly a quarter of a million Canadians, including over 17,000 members of the Women’s Division, served in the RCAF at home or abroad during the Second World War. Canada’s air force became the fourth largest among the Allied powers. Many individuals distinguished themselves. Flight Lieutenant George F. Beurling, with 31 1/3 enemy aircraft destroyed, was among the leading British Commonwealth fighter pilots of the war. Flight Lieutenant Richard Audet, piloting a Supermarine Spitfire fighter, destroyed five German fighters in a single sortie. Flying Officer Kenneth Moore (one of the "Lost Legion") sank two German submarines within the space of 22 minutes, a feat unmatched by any other pilot. Air Vice-Marshal Clifford McEwen, one of the RCAF’s old hands, had been a high-scoring fighter pilot in the First World War (22 victories) and a pioneer of aerial forestry protection between the wars. From early 1944 to the end of the war, as Air Officer Commanding, No. 6 Group in Bomber Command, he made Canada’s largest overseas air formation as efficient as that in any air force in the face of myriad technical challenges and terrifying losses in the air battle over Germany. Two Canadian airmen received the Victoria Cross, the British Commonwealth’s highest decoration for valour in combat: Flight Lieutenant David Hornell, who successfully bombed a German submarine even as his aircraft was being shot to pieces, and then gave up his life to save his comrades; and Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski, who sacrificed himself while trying to save a fellow crew member as their burning bomber was plunging to the ground. Among non-flying person-nel, Wing Commander Ross Tilley treated horribly burned airmen, using techniques developed in concert with his more famous British colleague, Sir Archibald McIndoe. Much of their work was so radical, even experimental, that their patients became known as "The Guinea Pig Club". Many did not survive. Over 17,000 members of the RCAF lost their lives during the Second World War, nearly 10,000 of them in the bombing offensive against Germany and occupied Europe. This was taken from the War Museum website.

(23.4.04 15:27) Sorry BFBC, I had inadvertantly bundled them in with the RAF. I only do so beacuse I resepect them as equals...

(23.4.04 16:11) PeterJ, Canada was fighting as part of the BCAF so fair enough. But sweeping statements such as your "We have only ourselves to thank for keeping the Nazis at bay in the years 1939-1941, and it was down to the courage and tenacity of the RAF's pilots during the Battle of Britain that Hitler was never able to launch an invasion of our shores" are just a little offensive to the many countries of the Commonwealth and their war dead. So think on before lumping them in! As for the US contribution, as we know it was HUGE in terms of supplies, loans, and eventually large numbers of manpower. Roosevelt of course did much secretly before they officially entered the war. He was a star! Canada's PM during that time was McKenzie King, a real eccentric who eventually went mad! He loved seances, Ouiji boards, and other occult things...

(23.4.04 19:08) Thanks for another fantastic entry Blackrat. It is my favourite so far. I feel much more informed. Love the new photos as well. The one of the little girl reminds me a bit of that National Geographic cover from way back. Remember, the little girl with the green eyes?

(24.4.04 01:12) BFBC: I must take the responsibility for that statement, not PeterJ - and offer my apologies for ommiting the contribution of the commonwealth at the Battle of Britain. I had several family members from commonwealth countries fighting in WWII so it's not as if I was ignorant of their efforts - a momentary lapse of concentration, perhaps. Harmony: Thank you, hon - for such kind sentiments, and the sweetie. x

(24.4.04 01:20) Blackrat. Totally off topic (sorry) but have you ever read Enigma by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore? It's a really interesting book. I was just reminded of it by all of the talk of interntaional stuff in WW2, its really insightful, although I have to admit some of the technical workings of the Enigma got a tad confusing...

(24.4.04 04:05) I am aware of what the UN is. While our government is shitty to the extreme on foreign policies, please be aware that we are fighting several battles over the world, at request. What gets me is that it is assumed that most of our troops are deployed to Iraq. No, a majority are still deployed elsewhere in the world, dying daily. But it is not newsworthy. The 100,000 troops that will be in Iraq barely make up 2% of our total troops currently on active duty. Do you honestly believe they are all sitting on posts, bases and camps with their thumbs up their butts waiting to be sent to Iraq? Many are in battles that don't make the news, with UN approval to sacrifice them. Then state what you mean, and mean what you state, as the old cliche goes. On April 8, you bloggged about Uday's atrocities just with his pet lions. This blog you go on about how it was at least stable and the Iraqi's had something prior to So-Damned-Insane's removal. It was a bit confusing. But I am just the average American. We are also stating the same thing, he should have been removed in a different way, using different means, with the world backing it, not the idiotic President in power going on an ego trip. The milk is spilt however, and time to clean it up, and we are using our resources to do it - both monetarily and daily deaths. Every nation in the world has blood on its hands. I was simply saying there are millions of Americans who are well aware of being in occupied territory. As for the most powerful nation...damn people make up the minds! Slap the responsibility onto us to be that, but smack us upside the head if it isn't how you want it to be. My government needs some serious renovations. Don't confuse the Reagan era with the Bush, Clinton and Bush II eras. All had their problems and we are still paying them. Often in these blogs the blame is laid soley at Bush's feet. He didn't flip off the UN, rush into Iraq without backing from several nations that wanted the same thing. UK, Japan, Spain (there were a few others, but my brain is slow tonight) were all in on it too. Bush just happened to have a bolstered military and an ego to send our countrymen in first. Which brings me back to another question - if we do such a bad job (and according to critics do it continually), then why does the world keep coming back to us? I am beginning to think we should change our acronym from US of A to ATM (America - Take Money/Military).

(24.4.04 12:24) AA, first of all while countries like the UK and Spain were pro this all the time, for which there governments are to blame, however we can't deny that some of the countries who are in the coallition are teher because Bush and Blair threatened them with the "if you aren't with us your with the terrorists" and such forth. The implication was that there was no safe middle ground for a nation to stand in, and the way France and Germany were attacked by the USA showed countries how they would be treat if they disagreed. So yes, some countries did support Bush anyway, but some were bullied and scared into it...

(24.4.04 21:04) Lets say am just glad that i met another person who simply think

(26.4.04 14:31) Peter: I know the background and the story but I haven't read Hugh's book. AA: It's a case of Hobson's choice for the rest of us. Sdaly, there will always be occasions where the west needs to flex its military muscle and size matters. With the US having the largest military machine within NATO, and the biggest budget, Uncle Sam gets the shitty end of the stick. Tough, but that's the way it goes. It's a fact of life that you won't always get credit for a job well done, but you can sure count on microspscopic analysis of your performance and a shed load of abuse from the free press if you get it wrong. Tough, eh, but then the US can't have it all its own way. I gather somewhere amongst all these accusations and counter claims you and I are actually singing from the same sheet - shall we just agree to disagree on the semantics, I'm losing track here. I2oCkEt: Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I've not seen your blog before, but a quick look tells me I'll be dropping by regularly. Well done for an informative and insightful blog.

(27.4.04 11:57) You have certainly given ME something to think over Blackrat. / *Half an hour later* Cor Blimey Blackrat, having just gone through all the comments there, you REALLY started a debate - Well Done for that, it gets people from different countries talking.

(28.4.04 11:19) Mark: Nothing polarises opinion like Iraq at the moment - kinda puts life in perspective, doesn't it?

John / Website (30.4.04 22:10) I stumbled across your comments quite by accident. Friends in Iraq early in the summer of 2003 painted quite a different picture than are being painted in 2004 -- and that's the bloody tragedy of this whole affair that's gone so sour and bungled. I'm torn on whether Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown by the American and British armies, but I've no conflict at all in believing that the Bush team has screwed this beyond repair, and the people of Iraq will be left picking up the pieces for years to come. Thanks for your sharp commentary and perspectives.

(1.5.04 17:37) John: Thank you, for taking the time to read through and comment. Like you, I'm undecided on the merits of Saddam's removal - does the end justify the means? Nicely put re: Bush - sadly, you're right on the money there.

Ryan Nails (18.11.04 20:29) I would just like to say that it is costing the us more to be in iraq than it would have cost to rebuild the twin towers so i think we should get our troups out of iraq.

(18.11.04 20:43) Ryan: Intersting take on the affair - why draw the comparison with the WTC? What relevance does the cost of rebuilding the twin towers have to do with the fiscal cost of being in Iraq?

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons

powered by
20six.co.uk