Iraq

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
Dubya admits his mistake, Mr Tony, of course, follows in, UK generals say it was a mistake, US generals sort of joining in but don't want to be aeen as flag-burners, UK intelligence services say "we told you so", US intelligence services echoing, Tories and Labour back-benchers withdrawing their support fast, Democrats over there attacking Bush over war, some Republicans following suit.

All we need now is sunybay and we've got a complete set.
 
Well, if it is it's as weak as the excuses they used (euphemism for lies they told) in starting it all. There were enough peoplw - including their own advisers that they chose to ignore - warning of just the consequences that we see now.

And if Bush and Blair had only been members of this forum it could all have been different.
 
In today's editorial in the Torygraph:

"Using our forces to create a stable democracy in Iraq is no longer a tenable goal; removing them expeditiously is the best option both for us and for the people of Iraq."

Replace the "no longer" with "was never" in the first part of the sentence and they're almost there.
 
What an absolute farce. Having disbanded most of Iraq's police force and army etc. it would leave Iraq in absolute turmoil. Evidently in parts of (southern?) Iraq they are trying desperately to recruit police from the streets and carry out fast track training as there just aren't enough police to take over if the US and UK suddenly pull out. Surely, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay until they have some form of stability before we up sticks and leave them to get on with it.
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Oct 23 2006, 01:03 PM
Surely, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay until they have some form of stability before we up sticks and leave them to get on with it.
........... otherwise we'll be leaving behind a Afghanistan-style lawless society and prime breeding/training ground for Al-queda ?

If Tony wanted his name to go down in the history books after he stepped down as our glorious leader, I think he may well have managed it.
 
I'm sure all of this comes as an enormous comfort to the families of the 2,000-odd American boys who went home in body bags, and our own bereaved military families. Maybe 'Death of a President' rang a tiny little bell in Bush's tiny little brain that his demise could come, not from the usual suspects at all, but from a grief-crazed, all-American parent? I was wondering this aloud yesterday (to my Mother, not to myself as usual) and considering whether the two issues were mere coincidence or perhaps, possibly, not.
 
More influenced by his party members and all those Republican Congressmen and Senators who are abouy a month away from losing their seats
 
Yes, I was only half-joking. Or half-serious. BTW, I'm amazed you haven't regaled the forum with the Foley Follies by now! :lol:
 
Quote K; I'm sure all of this comes as an enormous comfort to the families of the 2,000-odd American boys who went home in body bags.

I think it is approx 2,800 in Iraq and more than 200 in Afghanistan
 
Was it really a mistake?

For me and you and most observers yes. But for Bush and Cheney? I don't think it was. Quite the opposite, it was pre-meditated, long before he fiddled 2000. Quite calauclated and quite deliberate. The war was an excuse and background music for other agendas

1: They've got their hands on the oil wells, and I believe I'm correct in saying Haliburton benefited more than any contractor to date?

2: The debts to the energy companies that Bush owed them for financing his election camapign have been re-paid, and he will doubtless take some non Exec pay off now

3: He's settled the family feud that Saddam half started when trying to assassinate his father and wife in Kuwait in 1996. I say half, as there are many tangled issues as to how Saddam got to Kuwait in the first place, and Bush 41, was famously tripped up in one of the live Presidential debates when Ross Perot (of all nutters) challenged him some of the detail

4: He's succeeded in ensuring that the American arms industry won't go for lack of market opportunities for the foreseeable future. His other big corporate sector sponsor

5: He's been able to introduce punitive legislation that turns the USA into a quasi police state not so far removed from the Soviet Union that they so used to criticise. America had always wanted something akin to the Patriot Act, but never dare introduce it formally (even though they'd been doing it informally for years). Now they had the excuse and my God they've taken it.

6: He's sewn the seeds of regional discontent that will eventually provide an opportunity to expand the remit into other countries when Iraq runs dry, or provide Israel with the springboard they want (although their last adventure into Lebanon might hav eforced a re-think)

7: He's also sewn the seeds to destabalise the Far East, an aspiration highlighted in the PNAC masterplan as they identified it as the region of the world most likely to threaten Amercian hegenomy, and in particular economic supremacy in the future decades.

8: Whether by accident or design he seems to have managed to propogate, or at least rewaken a dormant sense of christian self righteousness that he's plugged into with the objective of presenting 'head clothers' as the enemy of civilisation that I suspect won't easily be expunged from the national pysche now

9: He's also ensured a budget commitment to the intelligence services, and defence industry that will be difficult to reverse.

Do you really think that a few thousand working class youngsters from the slum districts of the rust belt being killed in the pursuit Texan driven oil aspirations are seen as anything other than a price worth paying? I think he'll view this as having got it right, and on the cheap to boot

Faced with 2,800 dead Americans or a secure oil pipeline running through Afghanistan which do you really think the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rice et al would go for given their backgrounds?

I to would also like to invite Suny Bay to say he was wrong we were right. :o Afterall if the Bush Whitehouse can admit it, than surely his more distant European disciples who were equally duped by Dubya must feel more comfortable with it now? In fact do they not feel a sense of outrage for having been made to look so foolish, lied to and generally humiliated for having been strung along?.

I'm waiting for the logical extention of their admission. The next questions that must surely follow are along the lines of did you really know? when did you know? why didn't you move to stop it? Why when Colin Powell turned up at the UN on Feb 9th with artists impressions of what a mobile chemical weapons laboratory might look like if you could ever find one. Or when hazy aerial photographs of a lower resolution than Adlai Stevenson had produced 40 years earlier, that showed nothing more than a roof being put on a factory, did you not start to have doubts? Why did you lie for so long? and only come clean after you wouldn't have to face an election again?

Now history has no shortage of genocidal murderers, and some have amassed quite staggering body counts. Bush might not be in that league (although I can't begin to imagine the indirect count for his actions) but he deserves to take his place on the lower reaches of this ignominious list, and possibly in its middle strata given the brazen hypocracy involved.

God Bless America -
The land of the brave, and the home of the free
 
No quarrel with that truly appalling catalogue of self-interest, Warbler, from me. What's perhaps surprising is that we can talk about it NOW, rather than find out in maybe 30, 40 years' time about the wheelings and dealings. No wonder Bush wants less and less information available to the public!
 
Your wish is my command. 'Less and less correct information' as against, for good measure, 'more and more disinformation', aka 'l-i-e-s'.

It's plotting on a scale of which Machiavelli would've been proud, if not a little jealous. It's hard to imagine that many people are gullible enough to still buy the feed from Washington (apart from a few astute media connections), but I guess acting sincerely has been profitable from the days of the snake oil salesmen to now. Just that they didn't kill off thousands of people while making a buck. I want to ask a sincere question: how does Bush square his Christian beliefs with his actions?
 
I don't know whether anyone else heard it but Foreign Secretary, well in name anyway, Margaret Beckett was on the Today programme. Without using the "P" word she acknowledged that the country could eventually break up into multiple parts.

The discussion headed along the lines of Iraq being made up of three main regions and when she was asked about the possibility of separation, Ms Beckett said: "That is very much a matter for the Iraqis. They have had enough of people from outside handing down arbitrary boundaries and arbitrary decisions."

(Indeed, I'm sure they have, Margaret. And, er, who are these "people from outside" exactly?)

She was also asked during the interview whether historians would come to judge the Iraq invasion as a foreign policy disaster for Britain and replied: "Yes, they may. Then again, they may not."

(OK, Foreign Secretary, thanks for the ministerial insight.)
 
How on earth did Margaret Beckett get 'promoted' to Foreign Secretary after the utter shambles that she left behind in the Department of Environment? She can only have been placed their as a fall guy.
 
5: He's been able to introduce punitive legislation that turns the USA into a quasi police state not so far removed from the Soviet Union

What absolute rubbish.

6: He's sewn the seeds of regional discontent that will eventually provide an opportunity to expand the remit into other countries when Iraq runs dry, or provide Israel with the springboard they want (although their last adventure into Lebanon might hav eforced a re-think)

Spingboard for what? let me guess... But if its what you seem to be suggesting, the idea that Isreal wants start invading across the middle east is ludicrous. who would want those failed states?


7: He's also sewn the seeds to destabalise the Far East, an aspiration highlighted in the PNAC masterplan as they identified it as the region of the world most likely to threaten Amercian hegenomy, and in particular economic supremacy in the future decades.


How? China's rise (as well as rest of the far east) BENEFITS the USA economically and will continue to do so. But wheres this evidence of "destabilisiation"? Why would america want enemies in this region?

8: Whether by accident or design he seems to have managed to propogate, or at least rewaken a dormant sense of christian self righteousness that he's plugged into with the objective of presenting 'head clothers' as the enemy of civilisation that I suspect won't easily be expunged from the national pysche now

LOL. I think the "head clothers" have done a pretty good job of that themselves. and continue to do so. Just a cursory look at fundamentilist islamists shows that they are along way from most peoples ideas of civilised. Natuarlly enough this is far from being all muslims, but Bush has never at any time, domestically or internationally, alluded to such a generalisation.



9: He's also ensured a budget commitment to the intelligence services, and defence industry that will be difficult to reverse.

Starts a war to justify the budget? are you mad? Is labour going to encourage smoking to justify increases in NHS spending

The war was a mistake in nterms of its execution and planning. getting rid of Saddam was always justifiable. Oil came into in so far as one would feel uneasy with the oil markets dominated by Saudi (with it vile Waahibi sects waiting in the wings) Venezuela (with its pea brained Mugabe supporting president) and Russia. Like most wars it ws not entirely selfless off course, but if, and its looking like a big if, Iraq had developed into a reasonable democracy with a free economy and decent human rights, then it could have been a beacon for what is (Isreal and some small states apart) a desperately pathetcially failing part of the world

On balance, unlike Afganistan where it was eseential to destroy a disgusting regime, the war was wrong
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 24 2006, 08:58 AM
On balance, unlike Afganistan where it was eseential to destroy a disgusting regime, the war was wrong
Do we have the right to decide what is disgusting or not? If so, from whence did this right emanate?
 
Originally posted by simmo@Oct 24 2006, 10:26 AM
Do we have the right to decide what is disgusting or not? If so, from whence did this right emanate?
(1) Yes

(2) Freedom of thought - or did the government ban that and I missed it because I was away?
 
Originally posted by BrianH+Oct 24 2006, 09:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Oct 24 2006, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-simmo@Oct 24 2006, 10:26 AM
Do we have the right to decide what is disgusting or not? If so, from whence did this right emanate?
(1) Yes

(2) Freedom of thought - or did the government ban that and I missed it because I was away? [/b][/quote]
And to back up that disgust with physical force in the shape of an invasion to remove that which offends us?
 
Yes

I think Hitler, Pol pot and the current regime in Sudan would justify that

Of course there are certain moral standards that civilised people believe in. In addition to the fact that the taliban was a disgusting regime (argue with me that it wasnt if you like...) they were also a threat being avowed believers in the genocide of "non believers" worldwide. And they played a part in exporting this

And did the serbian action in Kosovo disgust you or not? Or did it disgust you but at the same time, you believed taht nothing should be done
 
The Taleban wasn't a 'disgusting' regime to the Americans when it suited them to support it in fighting the Russians. So, when does a useful, onside regime become disgusting? When it outlives its use or decides that just because it aligned itself with its enemy's enemy does not, in fact, make it its enemy's friend. The Taleban wanted the godless Russians out, out, out - but they didn't want a load of Western decadence either.

There are no moral absolutes - we may start out with what we think are 'moral' values (well, moral to us, if not to everyone else), which is what the Taleban did. I have no love for them at all, but they were very handy to the West at one stage, which found it expedient to put aside its 'moral' revulsions.

The Wahhabis helped to put the House of Saud back in power in the 1920s and while you call them 'vile', clivex, they actually helped a very 'moral' sheikh to overcome a despotic one (Rashid). They are the Sunnis' Sunni, the eminence grise in the background to the royal family and the antipathy of Shi'ite belief. The running gun battles fought regularly in the kingdom, and singularly unreported in the partisan Western media, are not with 'vile' Wahhabis, but with dissident Shi'ites and alleged Al-Queda gangs, either of which would be delighted to see the end of the Sauds' reign and instigate their own.

So, let's see: the Wahhabis are vile, and the Taleban are disgusting. Two fundamentalist beliefs you presumably think should be repressed. Curious that the first assisted the Sauds to establish 'Saudi' Arabia and thus bring in the Americans, drill for oil, and keep the West in petrol (and if you drive a car, then your car in petrol, too); in the second case, a very useful and dedicated ally in driving the Commies out of a foothold in Afghanistan and an eventual drive towards the oilfields of Iran, Kuwait, and goodness knows where.
 
Back
Top