PDA

View Full Version : How long till the brits declare the racists, mass murderers, or hippies the winners?


HelloKitty
05-05-2005, 10:32:00
Well?

mr.G
05-05-2005, 10:43:25
dontknow

protein
05-05-2005, 10:51:52
It will be the mass murderers who win and they'll declare tomorrow or very late tonight I guess.

I'm voting hippy.

zmama
05-05-2005, 11:01:58
Which one of them bombed the consulate?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050505/325/fi4yg.html

Spartak
05-05-2005, 12:15:58
They did.

protein
05-05-2005, 12:17:04
Not as dramatic as the Spanish vote swinger.

MDA
05-05-2005, 12:36:27
All those stereotypes about the French being surrender monkeys turned out to be the truth about Spain.

King_Ghidra
05-05-2005, 12:51:51
you tell em rambo

Cruddy
05-05-2005, 12:52:29
The result will probably be shaped up by 5AM UK time.

Not all counting will have been completed, but enough declared results to see who has the majority.

Venom
05-05-2005, 13:15:16
Hey, what's up with that crazy lady that had 3 baby corpses in her attic?

Chris
05-05-2005, 13:26:45
Distant relitive?

MDA
05-05-2005, 13:31:06
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
you tell em rambo

I don't mind, I just don't understand. They got the government they elected, and some countries don't have that option.

I haven't made any strong effort to understand what was actually going on during their election either, I just have the surface picture from mainstream news.

Venom
05-05-2005, 13:31:14
I don't kill babies.

Cruddy
05-05-2005, 13:32:45
But do you keep baby corpses in your attic?

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 13:40:54
Originally posted by MDA
All those stereotypes about the French being surrender monkeys turned out to be the truth about Spain.


Hmm, still trying to figure our how you can surrender from invading someone else's country.

protein
05-05-2005, 13:46:05
If you don't want to brutally invade a country and profit from it's rape you are surrendering from Liberty©, Democracy™ and Freedom®.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 13:47:11
You forgot the other major national parties-

UKIP- Fascists, ruled by bespectacled twat.
Veritas- Fascists, ruled by orange twat.
BNP- Fascists, ruled by flabby, boss-eyed twat.
Respect- Surrenderers.
Green- Treehuggers.

Gary
05-05-2005, 13:49:34
According to the latest exit polls, the Raving Loony Party have captured about half the seats so far.

Damn, that manifesto was good.

Chris
05-05-2005, 13:50:43
Originally posted by protein
If you don't want to brutally invade a country and profit from it's rape you are surrendering from Liberty©, Democracy™ and Freedom®. You are right, they were so much better under Saddam, with 19th century sewage and electical power, no civil rights and mass murder on demand and rapes while you wait.

What were people thinking removing Saddam?

King_Ghidra
05-05-2005, 13:51:23
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Hmm, still trying to figure our how you can surrender from invading someone else's country.

didn't they commemorate the american withdrawl from saigon this week, it's just like that

Gary
05-05-2005, 14:00:02
Why do folk continually harp on about the silver lining in a massive grey cloud ?

If the silver lining was what was that important, supporters would have concentrated on that from the start. They didn't, it wasn't. The cost of the lining was too great to justify to those with a vote.

Beta1
05-05-2005, 14:03:32
Originally posted by Chris
You are right, they were so much better under Saddam, with 19th century sewage and electical power, no civil rights and mass murder on demand and rapes while you wait.

What were people thinking removing Saddam?

or on the other hand

You are right, we're so much better under Blair, with 19th century sewage and electical power, no civil rights and mass murder on demand and rapes while you wait.

Why arn't people thinking removing Blair?

OK so maybe three babies in an attic doesnt make mass murder..

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 14:03:35
Originally posted by Chris
You are right, they were so much better under Saddam, with 19th century sewage and electical power, no civil rights and mass murder on demand and rapes while you wait.

What were people thinking removing Saddam?

Oh, and of course it's your God given right to put it all to rights. Same stuff goes on elsewhere, but where are the world police then?

Whjat amazes me is the negative press countries who decide not to be involved in illegal activities get.
Spain - surrender monkeys or a country actually driven by democracy?

protein
05-05-2005, 14:06:34
Originally posted by Chris
What were people thinking removing Saddam?
No, you're right I guess. All those thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, those sufferering in the massive destabilization of the middle east, the hundreds of thousands of injured, orphaned, homeless, tortured and the billions of angry people worldwide would be happy to know that a handful of America's richest companies and Al Quaida have benefited massively from the war.

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:09:35
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Oh, and of course it's your God given right to put it all to rights. Same stuff goes on elsewhere, but where are the world police then?Did 'elsewhere' invade another country, and sign and violate a ceasefire and 17 UN resolutions?

Whjat amazes me is the negative press countries who decide not to be involved in illegal activities get.Even Kofi the crook admitted there was nothing 'illeagal' about frreing 25 million Iraqis, thogh he almost choked on it.
Its also ludicrous to try and say courts have sway in wars.


Spain - surrender monkeys or a country actually driven by democracy? They wanted Aznar, right up until Bin Laden killed a few hundred of them, then suddenly Zapaterro was their man.

Lovely democracy in action.:rolleyes:

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:12:14
Originally posted by protein
No, you're right I guess. All those thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, those sufferering in the massive destabilization of the middle east, the hundreds of thousands of injured, orphaned, homeless, tortured and the billions of angry people worldwide would be happy to know that a handful of America's richest companies and Al Quaida have benefited massively from the war. Pay attention to 2005, not the fantasy the left created in 2003.

Iraqis THEMSELVES say they are happy Saddam is gone, and they are free.

Go ahead and check REAL Iraqi sources, not la-la land leftist sites still chanting bush lied.

By the way, 'billions' weren't mad, millions were, and they should all be deeply ashamed of themsleves.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 14:21:17
Originally posted by Gary
Why do folk continually harp on about the silver lining in a massive grey cloud ?

If the silver lining was what was that important, supporters would have concentrated on that from the start.

I did, repeatedly.

Two million deaths attributable to the actions of the Ba'athists, remember.

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 14:23:49
No, no no. The only people who should be ashamed, and deeply ashamed are those who use the humanitarian argument to hide the fact that America has done and will continue to do very well from the invasion and occupation of Iraq (through huge billion dollar infrastructure contracts to say nothing of the new oil supply forever guaranteed by whoever should become president).
These are the people who really should be ashamed because they can easily manipulate the stupid into believing it really was all in a good cause.

MRT144
05-05-2005, 14:26:37
i dont know chris, it seems youre forgetting the country IS STILL A SHITHOLE WITH NO IFRASTRUCTURE!

protein
05-05-2005, 14:27:56
la la land?

http://www.meaus.com/2004-torture-in-iraq.JPEG

la le la le la!
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/images/coffins.jpg

http://www.bartcop.com/slaughter-iraq.JPG

la la la

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/iraq_soldiers_dead.jpg

http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/maps/oil.jpg
doo di doo

http://www.staugustine.com/images/020104/raid1.jpg

http://encontrarte.aporrea.org/imagenes/9/2003-02-15T182120Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF209876_RTRIDSP_2_NEWS-IRAQ-PROTESTS-DC.jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/mideast_lebanon_iraq_protests1.jpg

laaaa laaa laaaa

http://binarycircumstance.typepad.com/bc_blog/iraq_death_toll_chart.jpg

dooooo di dooooo

http://arabic.cnn.com/2004/world/3/21/iraq.protests/story.protest.jpg~1079840410131069900.jpg

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:28:09
Yes, we just decided to pour 200 billion into that shithole, when we could just as easily have made nice with saddam and gotten it all for nothing.:rolleyes:

I'm amazed you still cling to the war for oil nonsense.

Immortal Wombat
05-05-2005, 14:29:09
Capslock - for when arguments are just too damn friendly.

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:29:53
Originally posted by MRT144
i dont know chris, it seems youre forgetting the country IS STILL A SHITHOLE WITH NO IFRASTRUCTURE! Bhagdad now has 70% coverage of power and sewage, higher then it EVER was.

People in Iraq lived in medievalism until Saddam was tossed.

MRT144
05-05-2005, 14:30:09
Who says I do? Way to put words into my mouth douchebag!

I DONT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR ARABS! I WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR ME!

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 14:30:43
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
No, no no. The only people who should be ashamed, and deeply ashamed are those who use the humanitarian argument to hide the fact that America has done and will continue to do very well from the invasion and occupation of Iraq (through huge billion dollar infrastructure contracts to say nothing of the new oil supply forever guaranteed by whoever should become president).
These are the people who really should be ashamed because they can easily manipulate the stupid into believing it really was all in a good cause.

Are you suggesting that my continued support for military action in Iraq since 2001 is because, despite not being American, I want to see the US control the world?

Two million dead and an attempted genocide. When do you draw the line and go in?

Yes- I'd support military action in Congo too.

protein
05-05-2005, 14:34:13
http://www.agrnews.org/issues/194/LondonProtests1.JPG

http://www.skibummusic.com/data/contentfiles/Bush_NAZI.jpg

http://www.soulwalking.co.uk/%A5Artist%20GIF%20Images/Dead-Iraqi-Child.jpg

laaa laaa laaaa

http://as.wn.com/i/b7/8c91ef01a563a2.jpg

laaaa laaaa laaaaa

http://www.jebhemelli.net/news/2004/Iraqi_Orisoner.jpg

dooooo di fucking doooooo

http://www.earthlypassions.com/earthlypassions/SoldierTimeManYr.jpg

Cruddy
05-05-2005, 14:40:12
Originally posted by Chris
Yes, we just decided to pour 200 billion into that shithole, when we could just as easily have made nice with saddam and gotten it all for nothing.:rolleyes:

I'm amazed you still cling to the war for oil nonsense.

Wolfowicz admitted it. It's not nonsense, it's the truth.

Beta1
05-05-2005, 14:40:19
la la la

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/graphics/manatee5sm.jpg

doo di doooo

http://www.hedweb.com/animimag/manateeb.jpg

la la laaaa
http://thelastresortonline.com/images/Manatee-two-1.jpg

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:40:39
Yes, la-la land

Mass graves
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200352191120/$file/gravesite-lead.jpg

http://massgraves.info/56.jpg

http://www.dailypundit.com/archives/graves3.jpg

Chemical attack vitims
http://members.cox.net/free_iraq/Saddam-Chmical-Victims-14.jpg
http://trishymouse.net/gas2.jpg

FREE Iraqis vote for the first time EVER
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/01/30/iraqpoll/upoll2.jpg
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/01/30/iraqpoll/upoll11.jpg
http://www.wzzm13.com/assetpool/images/05128191148_Iraqi%20Vote%20-%20Big%20Flag.JPG

Want more?

There are millions of Iraqis whom are free, hundreds of thousands of them fight the Batthists and Al Qaeda in Iraq every day.
http://armyadvice.org/images/armyadvice_org/tstubbs/28/o_Caldwell%20Mosque%20(1).JPG
http://onlineathens.com/images/112504/12715_512.jpg

protein
05-05-2005, 14:41:05
aw bless.

it's enough to make you forget how fucking evil war for profit is.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 14:41:55
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:44:03
Maybe someday you guys will understand just exactly what you have been supporting REALLY means, instead of the pablum the left has fed you all your lives.

I was in the ME as a young man, I saw how these people lived, its like its the 12th century for most of them, you YOU would keep them there.

Chris
05-05-2005, 14:45:09
Originally posted by protein
aw bless.

it's enough to make you forget how fucking evil war for profit is. Or how the 'anti-war' side would keep millions enslaved, out of site, out of mind.

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 14:45:17
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Are you suggesting that my continued support for military action in Iraq since 2001 is because, despite not being American, I want to see the US control the world?

Two million dead and an attempted genocide. When do you draw the line and go in?

Yes- I'd support military action in Congo too.

What you've said are good enough reasons for military action, so fine support it.

My point is that it's not the main reason that Governments go in for these wars so using the humanitarian argument won't work (there's no way there'll be action in Congo purely to save people)

I agree that the war for oil argument is dead. You have no idea how many political strings will have been attached to Iraq to ensure a supply of oil, each one of which will be fatal to any new Government who might seek independence.
Open your eyes and see beyond the spin.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 14:56:28
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
What you've said are good enough reasons for military action, so fine support it.

My point is that it's not the main reason that Governments go in for these wars so using the humanitarian argument won't work (there's no way there'll be action in Congo purely to save people)


It's not so unthinkable- look at Sierra Leone. It's less likely to happen in Congo for logistical reasons- Congo is enormous and almost impossible to effectively control.


I agree that the war for oil argument is dead. You have no idea how many political strings will have been attached to Iraq to ensure a supply of oil, each one of which will be fatal to any new Government who might seek independence.
Open your eyes and see beyond the spin.

Can you provide more information on these?

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 14:59:51
Well, most of the infrastructure contracts (mobile phone systems, etc. etc. ) are linked to potential profits from oil.
I could look and find more examples (of course most of this is going to be hush-hush, but you only have to look at how it has happened before to know it exists) See Brazil r.e. HIV related support from US

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 15:00:06
Incidentally, could a few of those images please be replaced by links? This thread is seriously unfriendly to anyone on dial-up.

Martini
05-05-2005, 15:10:35
That pic of Bush doing the Hitler salute is hilarious :lol:

Oh yes, and Iraq was indeed a shithole.

But Bush was hardly doing some benevolent act of humanitarian aid - any benefits Iraq got were a side effect of an unjust war fought out of greed and meglomania.

But yeah, c'est la vie, I didn't vote for the cunt in the first place (or Tony for that matter. Go me)

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 15:20:25
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
[B]Well, most of the infrastructure contracts (mobile phone systems, etc. etc. ) are linked to potential profits from oil.


Is that really a problem? Iraq needs an infrastructure, and oil futures are the obvious source of funding for it.

Chairman Yang
05-05-2005, 15:32:19
Originally posted by Chris
Maybe someday you guys will understand just exactly what you have been supporting REALLY means, instead of the pablum the left has fed you all your lives.

I was in the ME as a young man, I saw how these people lived, its like its the 12th century for most of them, you YOU would keep them there.

YEAH, YOU WERENT THERE MAN!

Maybe their infrastructure was so shot up from the tens of thousands of air sorties you made since after the first war, and because they couldnt repair it because you were blocking the country?






Or did you only hit military targets? :lol:

lightblue
05-05-2005, 16:06:21
Iraq wasn't really a shithole until the sanctions if you want to look back that far. In the 80's it had the best healthcare and universities in the ME, the sanctions gave Saddam an opportunity to crack down on the universities and neglect public services in favour of his army.

Gary
05-05-2005, 16:12:30
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I did, repeatedly.Sadly, you seem to have had little sway at the UN. Or for that matter with Bush & Bliar prior to the invasion.

Nills Lagerbaak
05-05-2005, 16:51:02
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is that really a problem? Iraq needs an infrastructure, and oil futures are the obvious source of funding for it.

These contracts were not always open to "free market competition", one of the great answers hailed by the US.

Whatever happens, US has secured a supply of oil for generations. I wonder if they'd rebulild an infrastrucure (after destroying it as mentioned elsewhere in this thread) if a country had no securities......

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
05-05-2005, 17:08:26
I have a couple of questions that haven't satisfactorily been cleared up since the beginning of this whole mess.

1) If the war was for liberty and freedom, why did the Whitehouse announce around 6PM March 19 2003 that "the disarmament of the Iraqi regime has begun", and that the entire Powerpoint argument (complete with Anthrax!) mentioned nothing of freedom and liberty? Liberty and freedom were a pale second rationalization for the war.

2) If 9-11 hadn't happened, would Iraq still be suffering under the yoke of Saddam?

I'm all for the freedom of the Iraqi people, but I think the way the world (primarily the U.S.) has gone about justifying it and engaging in it has been deeply flawed.

JM^3
05-05-2005, 17:21:23
I thought there were evidences that key people in the Bush regime were for taking out Saddam before 9-11


JM

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 17:29:35
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
I have a couple of questions that haven't satisfactorily been cleared up since the beginning of this whole mess.

1) If the war was for liberty and freedom, why did the Whitehouse announce around 6PM March 19 2003 that "the disarmament of the Iraqi regime has begun", and that the entire Powerpoint argument (complete with Anthrax!) mentioned nothing of freedom and liberty? Liberty and freedom were a pale second rationalization for the war.


There is no block vote. This is not a black/white world. There were many different factions and agendas on both sides of the Iran/Iraq issue. To some, the end justifies the means.


2) If 9-11 hadn't happened, would Iraq still be suffering under the yoke of Saddam?


Probably. It took 9/11 to stir the US into overwhelming military action- Saddam wasn't going to be shifted otherwise.

Had it not happened, I think there'd be a continuation of the previous 10 years- continued massive abuse of human rights in Iraq, coupled with economic sanctions and the occasional punitive bombing raid.

Either that, or Saddam "taken on board"- forgiven for past excesses as long as he promises not to do it again and offers the odd nice oil contract. To me, this option was the least palatable.


I'm all for the freedom of the Iraqi people, but I think the way the world (primarily the U.S.) has gone about justifying it and engaging in it has been deeply flawed.

We're all open to suggestions. How should it have been done?

KrazyHorse@home
05-05-2005, 18:00:16
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You forgot the other major national parties-

UKIP- Fascists, ruled by bespectacled twat.
Veritas- Fascists, ruled by orange twat.
BNP- Fascists, ruled by flabby, boss-eyed twat.
Respect- Surrenderers.
Green- Treehuggers.

Read that as "Green - Teabaggers"

They get my vote, then...

Gary
05-05-2005, 18:03:06
A good start might have been to stipulate a leader's ongoing mistreatment of 'his' people as beng a just cause to invade his sovereign territory, and to put the evidence before the UN so that they could vote and get it legitimately justified.

I also think that a necessary part of opting to invade another person's country might be to democratically put it to your people, to ensure the country is really behind you.

Immortal Wombat
05-05-2005, 18:24:31
Or at least mention it in the manifesto.

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 19:47:56
In the build-up to the invasion, public support was behind military action, going by the opinion polls. Or do you think that only a referendum will suffice when contemplating military action.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
05-05-2005, 20:13:52
Originally posted by Gary
A good start might have been to stipulate a leader's ongoing mistreatment of 'his' people as beng a just cause to invade his sovereign territory, and to put the evidence before the UN so that they could vote and get it legitimately justified.

I also think that a necessary part of opting to invade another person's country might be to democratically put it to your people, to ensure the country is really behind you.

A better option IMHO, but a slower one, would have been to continue to do it the UN way and, when it fails utterly due to the oppposition France put up, declare the UN broken, and fix it. I don't think it would have taken much more work than Bush put into it, and the outcome would still have been the same, just a little later than in reality.

Aren't they now talking about adding more permanent Security Council members? I'm unaware if they'll have veto powers too, but it seems to me that if any one obstinate country can veto an otherwise unanimous edict purely for political reasons, there's something needs fixing.

Martini
05-05-2005, 21:41:06
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Or do you think that only a referendum will suffice when contemplating military action. [/B]

Yes.

Koshko
05-05-2005, 22:34:38
Originally posted by Chris
Yes, we just decided to pour 200 billion into that shithole, when we could just as easily have made nice with saddam and gotten it all for nothing.:rolleyes:

I'm amazed you still cling to the war for oil nonsense.

It's 200 billion into a shithole at the expense of the USA which is already in deep shit due to massive overspending by the Bush administration even without the Wars though.

Koshko
05-05-2005, 22:38:52
Originally posted by lightblue
Iraq wasn't really a shithole until the sanctions if you want to look back that far. In the 80's it had the best healthcare and universities in the ME, the sanctions gave Saddam an opportunity to crack down on the universities and neglect public services in favour of his army.

This is true. Iraq used to be World-renowned for their high quality doctors.

Koshko
05-05-2005, 22:41:41
Originally posted by JM^3
I thought there were evidences that key people in the Bush regime were for taking out Saddam before 9-11


JM

Actually iirc there was. There also was serious talk of the US going into Afghanistan pre-9/11 too. Bin Ladin just basically gave them a legit excuse to go through with it.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
05-05-2005, 22:42:38
Originally posted by Chris
Yes, we just decided to pour 200 billion into that shithole, when we could just as easily have made nice with saddam and gotten it all for nothing.:rolleyes:

I'm amazed you still cling to the war for oil nonsense.

You know, not trying to take sides but just looking at things from a totally cynical point of view (which is a terribly healthy trait when regarding any stripe of politics, I find), it seems much more reliable in the long term to liberate a country from it's evil dictator and have it be generous to you for that, than to risk getting buddy-buddy with an irrational despot who could turn around next week and give all your favors to someone else more politically expedient.

Course, that would mean government being able to look beyond the next election, and aside from a few "radical" politicians, just about all of them are in it for short-term gains that will get them re-elected, or at least a nice cushy job in the private sector once their term limits are up. So I don't think my cynical evaluation is necessarily accurate :)

Lazarus and the Gimp
05-05-2005, 22:42:49
Originally posted by Martini
Yes.

That's fair enough- provided you aren't just using hindsight-ism. It would rule out another Iraq. Probably another Sierra Leone too.

Koshko
05-05-2005, 22:45:22
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In the build-up to the invasion, public support was behind military action, going by the opinion polls. Or do you think that only a referendum will suffice when contemplating military action.

Actually most of the European countries Never really supported military action including many of the US allies. Heck even in the US it took a lot of coaxing (and it seems many false reports) to convince people here that Saddam needed to be taken out.

sleeping_satsuma
05-05-2005, 22:51:51
my big problem with the justification for the illegal war on Iraqis is that America (the political entity, not the people before any american individuals get all arsey) thinks it can say jump and everyone else should say how high. Full credit to the Frenchies for telling them to go sit on a baguette.

And Nills is right, the Americans have set the contracting process up so that- shock horror! Only Americans can tender, or if any company from Allied countries wants to tender for infrastructure contracts they have to go through Bectel, and American company. Interestingly, the only contracts coming out of Iraq next to theseare the continuing medical supplies contracts.

Not only did America create the conditions for this war by imposing sanctions that have starved and ravaged the Iraqi people, they then tell them they should be grateful for the 'freedom' imposed on them by replacing one military junta with another. A freedom that has killed and maimed thousands of their people and left them without livelihoods. Oh- and destroyed some of the most important historical artefacts in the world, one of the greatest sources of Iraqi pride and identity.

The whole thing has been a disgusting display of military might, contempt, and disregard for anything approaching freedom. Freedom means allowing people to make their own choices not rampaging across their country, killing their children and stripping their dignity.

All the arguments put forward in justification of the war by our governments (and I hold spineless Bliar equally responsible for ensuring Britain's complicity in the war) have been proven to be lies. Saddam has not been shown to have any connection to the 9/11 incident that obviously fuelled the invasion. A memo was leaked last week showing that Blair had to work up a case to provide even a weak justification for the war. If it was truly a war for freedom, why was no peace time plan in place? WHy was it not handled with sensitivity and diplomacy? And more crucially, why was that never the original justification for the- lets say it again- illegal war?

I don't see how any of this benefits the Iraqis. They are living with increased , violence and military control because America fancied flexing some muscle and showing who's boss. As we've seen in Ireland, these situations don't just go away because people get the vote (where the american appointed representatives get in in the case of Iraq).

And if freedom is so important to America why do they not liberate (for liberate read invade) places like Sudan where genocide is being committed and the government has failed to act decisively?

Whether you think Iraq will benefit in the long term (I personally think thats unlikely) or not, I don't see how anyone can conceivably still be saying that it was justified on any basis we were provided with at the time of invasion. Yes Saddam's regime was horrifying, but it should have been left to the people of Iraq to deal with it. And incidentally when they did indicate they wanted help during the first Gulf War, America turned its back, helping Saddam to grow in power.

The whole affair is obscene. Labour did not get my vote today.

JM^3
05-05-2005, 23:19:06
most revolutions get put down bloodily

JM

Gary
05-05-2005, 23:26:03
Originally posted by Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
Aren't they now talking about adding more permanent Security Council members? I'm unaware if they'll have veto powers too, but it seems to me that if any one obstinate country can veto an otherwise unanimous edict purely for political reasons, there's something needs fixing. Seems to me a veto is an unreasonable situation, but so is going ahead on a simple majority, which means that almost half could be opposed. There ought to be a clear majority, some sort of agreed percentage that would minimise the effect of bribe/threat tactics and yet also sideline those just being awkward for 'hidden' agenda reasons.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
06-05-2005, 00:03:19
Couple that with some way of resolving a non-majority deadlock (either to abandon a resolution, or get it to go forward - I have no proposals for how to accomplish that though) then I think that would at least treat some of the symptoms of the current U.N. breakdown. The whole thing needs redoing from scratch though, and coutries that sign up need to take it seriously, instead of playing it lip service. Possibly reduce it's charter somewhat so as not to make it's member nations feel unreasonably strong armed by the rest of the world to do things that's not in their national interest.

Martini
06-05-2005, 00:06:54
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
That's fair enough- provided you aren't just using hindsight-ism. It would rule out another Iraq. Probably another Sierra Leone too.

Certainly not. I pride myself on being against the Iraq war before it became fashionable, then acting smug when othe latched onto the idea.

Though sadly, I think even if we had had a referendum, most of the uk would have voted to go to war - all because they fell for Blair's scare tactics :(

Chris
06-05-2005, 03:56:17
my big problem with the justification for the illegal war on Iraqis No matter how many times you repeat this lie kiddo, won't make it so.

Nothing 'illeagal' about it, EXCEPT what France did.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
06-05-2005, 04:42:10
How's that? My understanding is that France was operating well within the operating procedures of the Security Council. Being obstinate and argumentative doesn't make them criminals.

Koshko
06-05-2005, 04:52:41
Nor does disagreeing with the USA ...

Chris
06-05-2005, 04:54:27
Taking oil money brides for the UNSC vote does however.

JM^3
06-05-2005, 06:06:52
brides?

JM

KrazyHorse@home
06-05-2005, 06:10:28
They are polygamists over there, you know.

KrazyHorse@home
06-05-2005, 06:10:50
I'm not sure if I mean the Middle East or France.

JM^3
06-05-2005, 06:13:52
I would like to visit france in the next 2 years...

JM

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
06-05-2005, 06:42:26
Make sure you take a crate of deodorant and pass out free samples.

Oerdin
06-05-2005, 06:43:59
Originally posted by Chris
Yes, we just decided to pour 200 billion into that shithole

$300 as of last month (most of it on the military with only a tiny fraction going to reconstruction)); try to keep up. The war was founded on a lie and the American tax payer has been horribly abused by Bush and his kleptocratic backers.

Koshko
06-05-2005, 07:12:01
Originally posted by Chris
Taking oil money bribes for the UNSC vote does however.

What about all the other objecters that wasn't connected to that?

Oerdin
06-05-2005, 07:21:26
Originally posted by lightblue
Iraq wasn't really a shithole until the sanctions if you want to look back that far. In the 80's it had the best healthcare and universities in the ME

No, it has always been a shit hole. They built a nice highway system in the 1970's and the universities weren't that bad but the vast majority of the country has always been mud huts with no sewage, no running water, no electricity, and dirt streets. People have home rigged electrical lines into their mud huts but that's life in the villages of Iraq. The cities are much better off and actually have concrete buildings but it is still decidedly third world.

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-05-2005, 07:57:22
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
[B]
Not only did America create the conditions for this war by imposing sanctions that have starved and ravaged the Iraqi people,


Actually that was the UN.


I don't see how any of this benefits the Iraqis.


Except the Shi'ites and Kurds, who constitute the majority, haven't had any more mass slaughters on the scale of the late 80's and early 90's, and now have both the vote and elected representatives in the highest tiers of government. That kind of beats Uncle Saddam's fatherly dictatorship by my reckoning.


And if freedom is so important to America why do they not liberate (for liberate read invade) places like Sudan where genocide is being committed and the government has failed to act decisively?


Two main reasons. While Sudan is light years away from decent representation, it does at least have a semblance of democratic process. Secondly, like Congo or China, it would be a damned sight harder to take. Only lunatics and students value consistency over self-preservation.


Whether you think Iraq will benefit in the long term (I personally think thats unlikely) or not, I don't see how anyone can conceivably still be saying that it was justified on any basis we were provided with at the time of invasion. Yes Saddam's regime was horrifying, but it should have been left to the people of Iraq to deal with it. And incidentally when they did indicate they wanted help during the first Gulf War, America turned its back, helping Saddam to grow in power.


Two million dead and an attempted genocide. When do you draw the line? Why do our governments have to take, as their political mentor, Pontius Pilate?

Yep- we should have gone into Iraq in 1991. That was an error.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-05-2005, 09:18:27
Well, the point of the war was to turn Iraq into a happy little US kleptocrat colony. And meanwhile I'm convinced Bush & co didn't lie about bringing "democracy and freedom" to Iraq. Their domestic policies show that they consider this to _be_ democracy and freedom.

Their policies were just so hopelessly inept that they were steering the country right towards anarchy and civil war. Meanwhile, they had to retract from the looting and having a simple puppet regime, and there is a good chance for a somewhat positive outcome.

I still think Blair has played the worst role in this shit opera.

sleeping_satsuma
06-05-2005, 21:23:35
Laz I'm still unclear as to whether you're saying that you think the war was fought for justice and freedom, in which case you're kidding yourself, or whether you think the justifications for the war we were originally given were accurate, in which case you're wrong, or whether you think the illegal means justify the end and the promise of freedom makes it all ok, in which case I think its incredibly easy for you, sitting here in Britain with your second kid on the way and a decent job/lifestyle. You might feel differently if you were over there, and I'm sure Oerdin and DH would give you a perspective on how improved the Iraqi way of life is, in amongst the rubble, lack of employment, increased risk of death and dead family members.

I'm stunned that you support the war. My hope is that things improve for Iraq, but it looks like turning into another Ireland, and one that has no political credibility and depends on another country for protection.

JM^3
06-05-2005, 22:27:29
very few recolutions aren't bloody

but soemtimes they are needed

JM

KrazyHorse@home
06-05-2005, 22:32:54
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Yep- we should have gone into Iraq in 1991. That was an error

Yes, it was.

Going in 12 years later did not rectify that error, IMO. It compounded it.

JM^3
06-05-2005, 22:34:55
nah, it was the needed response to the error in 1991

JM

KrazyHorse@home
06-05-2005, 22:39:37
Eh. I don't think that the war in Iraq was an obvious wrong when judged from the humanitarian perspective. I do think it will end up being more expensive than it was worth. Punishment for wrongs done in the past is not a valid justification; the only humanitarian justification is to prevent wrongs being done in the future.

Likely the Iraqi people will end up better after than before. I don't think that the price in blood that they and the Americans are paying right now will be justified, though. Not to mention the wider consequences, which I think will be negative.

The Mad Monk
06-05-2005, 23:11:20
Punishment for wrongs done in the past may not be valid, but how about using them as a predictor of what would happen in the future -- especially considering the caliber of successor Saddam was grooming?

sleeping_satsuma
06-05-2005, 23:16:07
just because we think they deserve our political system, doesnt mean its ok to go and invade their country and impose it on them. Nothing significant had changed in what they were doing, and its pretty clear that we invaded as a response to 9/11/using 9/11 as an excuse.

protein
06-05-2005, 23:18:00
It reminds me of when Britain went round the world making the natives more christian.

Koshko
07-05-2005, 05:38:22
Don't forget that the reason we went in there was their massive stockpile of nukes. Oh wait ... we aren't supposed to remember that was the primary given reason for invading there.

JM^3
07-05-2005, 06:06:31
I thought we went in there because they might have nukes in the (near) future?

which is a really easy thing to say

JM

Koshko
07-05-2005, 06:56:30
We went in because of "WMDs".

KrazyHorse@home
07-05-2005, 07:01:48
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Punishment for wrongs done in the past may not be valid, but how about using them as a predictor of what would happen in the future -- especially considering the caliber of successor Saddam was grooming?

The threat wasn't imminent, and if it ever did become imminent then that would be a new ball game. Especially given the fact that there was a chance Saddam's regime would wither and die before it came to that.

If I could have pushed a button and given Iraq a new government then I would have. Unfortunately, the price was much higher than that.

KrazyHorse@home
07-05-2005, 07:02:47
Originally posted by JM^3
I thought we went in there because they might have nukes in the (near) future?

which is a really easy thing to say

JM

But completely full of shit?

You know as well as I do what building nuclear weapons requires. They were not even close.

Koshko
07-05-2005, 07:59:33
k-beast! :shoot:

Spartak
07-05-2005, 09:03:00
K-beast? WTF is that?

JM^3
07-05-2005, 09:11:45
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
But completely full of shit?

You know as well as I do what building nuclear weapons requires. They were not even close.

I agree that they weren't even close

and I never thought they were close

but I know that they wanted to be close...

Jon Miller

KrazyHorse@home
07-05-2005, 11:38:23
That's true. But if wishes were fishes...

The point is that it's very easy to frighten people. Not so easy to make them see sense.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
07-05-2005, 12:07:10
Originally posted by JM^3

but I know that they wanted to be close...


Well, the reason has turned to "they might have wanted WMDs" anyway... :D

sleeping_satsuma
07-05-2005, 12:48:39
can we stop talking about this now?

Spartak
07-05-2005, 12:51:18
no.

KrazyHorse@home
07-05-2005, 12:56:15
Well, nobody responded to my Teabagging Greens comment, so we're stuck with Iraq.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
07-05-2005, 12:58:24
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
Well, nobody responded to my Teabagging Greens comment, so we're stuck with Iraq.


Which bit of it do I have ?


Somewhere with a good restaurant, I hope.

Provost Harrison
07-05-2005, 13:03:44
Why does that woman have a purple finger?

KrazyHorse@home
07-05-2005, 13:18:59
She's "good friends" with the Count from Sesame Street

Koshko
07-05-2005, 19:47:45
Originally posted by Spartak
K-beast? WTF is that?

I meant h-beast ... the 100th post. :coolgrin:

sleeping_satsuma
07-05-2005, 22:31:54
i used to have a history teacher who looked like and was as crazy as The Count. He was great.


Can we stop now. Seriously.

Provost Harrison
07-05-2005, 23:31:38
Originally posted by Koshko
I meant h-beast ... the 100th post. :coolgrin:

That's a cbeast dammit :p

Koshko
08-05-2005, 00:18:55
This is what I get for going old school.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
09-05-2005, 14:59:13
Originally posted by sleeping_satsuma
i used to have a history teacher who looked like and was as crazy as The Count. He was great.


Can we stop now. Seriously.

No-one's forcing you into this thread, you know...

Koshko
09-05-2005, 21:41:59
*bump to be annoying*

MOBIUS
09-05-2005, 23:10:50
Look, can we forget about Iraq...

The Americans were a bunch of cunts and brought Tony 'I'm a poodle cunt' Blair along for the ride.

Just wondering when we're going to get NK, cos I'm betting their regime has killed far more of their people and they actually have nukes...:clueless:

Koshko
10-05-2005, 03:34:54
The same time we go into any of the dozens of African nations being ruled by dictators or in the midsts of civil wars.