That Iraq War Thread

[MadameButterfly]

Give me women in power all over the world and especially in politics and then we can get on with saving mother earth...

You mean like Margaret Thatcher tried to?

Oh good god NO! Not like her! We need new fresh blood in politics from women who know what they are doing....

[eotunun]

Give me women in power all over the world and especially in politics and then we can get on with saving mother earth...

You mean like Margaret Thatcher tried to?

Oh good god NO! Not like her! We need new fresh blood in politics from women who know what they are doing....

[Almiche V]

Indeedy. Clear them all out I say (except for Helen Clark). And we need a balance of balanced men and women, 50-50 please. All of whom are prepared to give corporations the finger and not embrace American junk culture.

And national service for violent, ignorant chav culture. Actually, send them to Iraq to serve for a bit.

[Almiche V]

And the glorious EdwinaC of course.......

[MadameButterfly]

Indeedy. Clear them all out I say (except for Helen Clark). And we need a balance of balanced men and women, 50-50 please. All of whom are prepared to give corporations the finger and not embrace American junk culture.

I agree with a balance of men and women and the fact we should give corporations the finger, kill the monopolies and for heaven's sake stop looking at Amercian for anything for once!

And national service for violent, ignorant chav culture. Actually, send them to Iraq to serve for a bit.

hmmm....I see what you are saying but I would like to see that war stopped and the money saved to put into caring for the old and sick and into the education of the children....

These are points those in power love to forget or ignore or whatever they do there!

[Syberberg]

hmmm....I see what you are saying but I would like to see that war stopped and the money saved to put into caring for the old and sick and into the education of the children....

As well as a massive ramp-up in renewables like solar, wind, wave/tidal, geothermal, better grant schemes for microgeneration (especially here in the UK) and improving the electricity grid with more/better HVDC cables and being able to cope with the inevitable intermittent supply.

[MadameButterfly]

hmmm....I see what you are saying but I would like to see that war stopped and the money saved to put into caring for the old and sick and into the education of the children....

As well as a massive ramp-up in renewables like solar, wind, wave/tidal, geothermal, better grant schemes for microgeneration (especially here in the UK) and improving the electricity grid with more/better HVDC cables and being able to cope with the inevitable intermittent supply.

Indeed as well as that too!

[nodubmanshouts]

You used game theory in an economic context, expand that economic thinking.

Not sure that those two countries would be on the list for a direct act. For example, invading Kuwait and using WMD as a deterrent would probably be more useful for the former regime.

[Syberberg]

You used game theory in an economic context, expand that economic thinking.

Not sure that those two countries would be on the list for a direct act. For example, invading Kuwait and using WMD as a deterrent would probably be more useful for the former regime.

Err, wait a minute.

You have used Saddam's past behaviour to justify your position, re attacking Israel. Yet you chose to ignore his past behaviour when it comes to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Where's the logic?

[nodubmanshouts]

No, no, I think you missed what I was saying in that last post. Kuwait would have been in his sights for an attack, but probably not directly using WMD. He could invade using conventional forces, and then use WMD as a deterrent against a First Gulf War-style counter attack; "if you kick me out of Kuwait, they get the Bio weapons on them as I leave"

I don't doubt though that he would use WMD against Isreal in some form though (directly or through terrorist groups).

[Almiche V]

And national service for violent, ignorant chav culture. Actually, send them to Iraq to serve for a bit.

hmmm....I see what you are saying but I would like to see that war stopped and the money saved to put into caring for the old and sick and into the education of the children....

These are points those in power love to forget or ignore or whatever they do there!

My nat service remark was a throw away. But I think the most anti social types could do with a little 'breaking down, then building up treatment'. Might help them appreciate life more.

The war must be the main reason why people are feeling the crunch right now, and why we're being stealth taxed to oblivion.

[Dark]

I think Hugh Dennis summed it up quite nicely on Mock The Week.

"I would like to bring back National Service, yes. For the elderly. Since they're the ones who seem to want it so much."

Seriously, you've got unstable and violent kids.. the last thing you want to do is train them to kill.

[MadameButterfly]

My nat service remark was a throw away. But I think the most anti social types could do with a little 'breaking down, then building up treatment'. Might help them appreciate life more.

No not at all dear sir, although I think when looking at the anti social types that are breaking down the system are doing this for a reason and usually that stems from an upbringing of never been listened to or allowed to say what you think! I'm of firm belief that all those in anti social groups are there because of a religious or cultural belief or hanging because the parents are too worried about either earning too much money or are lost themselves depending on the situation of course.
Those who have done wrongs I have other beliefs for, very extreme I might add as I would go as far as cutting off of googlies for certain crimes as would I say an eye for an eye, but first I would look at the case to see why the individual is acting this way and if not by his fault but by influences out of reach, not punish him but help him. If done because the core itself is evil then I believe in no mercy....

The war must be the main reason why people are feeling the crunch right now, and why we're being stealth taxed to oblivion.

My dear the government will tax us all until we are skint I'm affraid. Who the fuckis actually paying for the war and all the crap in this world? Us the tax payers in every country and trust me which government today and country stick up your hand and say NO we are not corrupt and I bet we could prove you wrong! It's the way the world is turning and what the governments are doing and yet us voters and people stay small....

Go figure....

Seriously, you've got unstable and violent kids.. the last thing you want to do is train them to kill.

Indeed Dark and if a country has weapons people get killed! So with our fuckedup world at the moment we need to lay down weapons of all kind and start planting fields of hennep which by the way produce the most amazing air with 100% oxygen....build a few of those babies and we could inhale fresh air on a natural high!

[Almiche V]

My dear the government will tax us all until we are skint I'm affraid. Who the fuckis actually paying for the war and all the crap in this world? Us the tax payers in every country and trust me which government today and country stick up your hand and say NO we are not corrupt and I bet we could prove you wrong! It's the way the world is turning and what the governments are doing and yet us voters and people stay small....

Go figure....

That's what I said

[Almiche V]

Seriously, you've got unstable and violent kids.. the last thing you want to do is train them to kill.

The worst ones already know how to kill.

[Syberberg]

No, no, I think you missed what I was saying in that last post. Kuwait would have been in his sights for an attack, but probably not directly using WMD. He could invade using conventional forces, and then use WMD as a deterrent against a First Gulf War-style counter attack; "if you kick me out of Kuwait, they get the Bio weapons on them as I leave"

Ah yes, follow you now. Thanks for clarification. Yeah, I agree with that. I would, however, add the caveat that Saddam's military capability wouldn't have allowed him much success without resorting to the use of bio-chem, if he could get his hands on them.

CSIS Study, 12/03/01 (A very good assessment of Iraq's military capabilities, the majority of which I agree with except for the WMD part...given the position I'm taking in this debate. Thought I'd better clarify that for the audience )

Here's why I disagree with the WMD part of the assessment linked to above.

I don't doubt though that he would use WMD against Isreal in some form though (directly or through terrorist groups).

Hmm, this is area of speculation, but legitimate speculation. He'd have to manage to get them through Jordan, Syria or The Lebanon. Given Hizbollah's close ties to Iran, I'd say with a fair degree of certainty that route can be ruled out. The same with Hamas, although they do receive help from the Ba'athist rulers of Syria.

Jordan is pro-Western, so any blockade and inspection would be enforced.

Syria, however, is a tough call and would probably look to Iran for influence and would be extremely mindful of Israeli reaction. My best educated guess, is that they'd prevent it and report it if they found it.

Then we have the Palestinians themselves. Would they actually accept BW or CW for use against the Israelis? Unlikely, but not impossible, for two reasons:

1) Any use of BW or CW would stand the chance of being blown into the West Bank, Palestinian Controlled Jerusalem or southern Lebanon depending upon where it was released.

2) Israeli retaliation.

All in all, I'd say the probability of Iraq either directly or indirectly attacking Israel with WMD to be not impossible, but so extremely unlikely as not really worth any weight.

[Syberberg]

Seriously, you've got unstable and violent kids.. the last thing you want to do is train them to kill.

There's far more than just learning how to kill. Self discipline, self respect, respect of and by authority, camaraderie, sense of collective responsibility, learning a "trade" depending upon what regiment you join.

If there is a return to National Service, I'd be in favour of it if it only centered on non-combat regiments and roles.

[Prescott]

Hello, here's my two shillings:
'You are the world and the world is you.' As long as that guy flips you off for driving to slow in front of him and in response you want to run him off the road, there will be war. Unfortunately the most enlightened of us are not too enlightened. Unfortunately there are many things we could be doing with the world's money that would be better than arming ourselves. But seriously, all the 'capital' and gross domestic product of England was gained through blood and slavery. Just like America and the rest of the 'civilized world'. Think feudalism, kings, queens, indentured servants, black slaves, celtic slaves to the romans, etc. It's been going on this way for tens of thousands of years. There are too many that know their history and do not trust humanity or the 'masses' to ever act any other way, so they over-compensate with extremely conservative strategies like 'to protect peace is to prepare for war', and all the rest. And can you blame them? In my country most people in their middle 40's are obese retards of the lowest rank, with little education besides what they read in Maxim and would rather watch NASCAR than the news, much less question the news we do have. Seriously, if I was a blue blooded billionaire I'd definitely realize that 'everybody got one' and I'd want mine too, as far as WMD's and armored Humvees are concerned. The war in Iraq is a shame, but what war isn't? The rich are fighting another war to stay rich and in the process we get our iPods and cheap CDR's and nice Macs and PC's here in the US and over there in the UK and on the Continent. Yet I don't see myself living a life of squalor any time soon to emulate Gandhi and give up this evil system and the Blood Money we all get paid with, and I don't see any one else doing it either. Why should we, when the Bushes, Walkers, Blairs, Rothschilds and Rockefellers, King Henries, Napoleons, Caesars, Popes and Thomas Jeffersons of the world never have and never will. Until someone with the power and money of a King or Emperor steps up with some of these ideals, nothing will ever change. Problem is none of us would trust him or her any way.

"Men, bought and sold, and the world keeps turning"

"Which hand holds, your hand holds - "

[nodubmanshouts]

All in all, I'd say the probability of Iraq either directly or indirectly attacking Israel with WMD to be not impossible, but so extremely unlikely as not really worth any weight.

I'm going to have a hard time proving the intent of the former regime with pure evidence, but I'm not so sure Israel would agree: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/ ... 9037.shtml

Or from Philip Zelikow of the 9/11 commission:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

And I think that's pretty much where the truth lies; the USA cannot and will not admit the war was to protect Israel (and the consequences of an Israel-Iraq war), and its actually better for the government to have people think "its about oil!" than it is to have this out there.

[nodubmanshouts]

a balance of men and women

because I've always felt that a political system should involve voters electing the correct number of penises or vaginae to fill out the House of Commons evenly, rather than the merit of the individual candidate.

we should give corporations the finger

because private companies never gave the world anything useful, like the light bulb, television, affordable home computers or efficient delivery of commodity services, and they certainly shouldn't be rewarded if they did.

Nor should they be allowed to campaign for changes in out-dated legislation which affects their business growth, and they should just up and take it, because they don't get an opinion.

kill the monopolies

except the ones controlled by the government, because its always better to have a government-run monopoly controlled by elected officials, than, say people with Business Administration degrees.

and for heaven's sake stop looking at American for anything for once!

Absolutely, there's nothing to be learned from there; in fact it sucks so badly, the US has a huge problem with net emigration. California is expected to be emptied within the next decade, its such a bad place to live.



.
.
.

was that dry enough? new thread anyone? j/k j/k...

[eldorado69]

Well, I pretty much agree with that. I'm not really commenting on whether the war was a mistake or not, or whether things were handled as well as they could have been... its just that I believe the war wasn't primarily motivated by the quest for oil - rather, the US faced a prisoner's dilemma, and made the only decision they could based on the information they had at the time, and they did what they did primarily to avoid a larger war.

How things have gone since the war ended and the occupation began is a whole other question.

Its nice to have an intelligent discussion on this

'Intelligent discussion'? With so much hindsight you can intellectualise until the troops go home. It was supposed 'intelligence' that started the whole stupid mess.

[MadameButterfly]

a balance of men and women

because I've always felt that a political system should involve voters electing the correct number of penises or vaginae to fill out the House of Commons evenly, rather than the merit of the individual candidate.

No the political system should not involve electing penises or vaginae - that's where you go wrong from the start as politics is not about sex!
The people in charge should be elected to bring in a government where those politicians are really wanting to do something for their country and not for the money nor the dirty games played. I would hope someone in that position would be very intellectual and open-minded!

we should give corporations the finger

because private companies never gave the world anything useful, like the light bulb, television, affordable home computers or efficient delivery of commodity services, and they certainly shouldn't be rewarded if they did.

Nor should they be allowed to campaign for changes in out-dated legislation which affects their business growth, and they should just up and take it, because they don't get an opinion.

indeed! If private companies you explain have increased our consumption rate to over consuming and have given nothing back to the public then they shouldn't be rewarded at all. But they are clever as they have already taken from you!

If those changes in out-dated legislation are affecting their business growth well then they should look in the direction of the Minister of Economics then! Having an opinion is always a good thing though!

kill the monopolies

except the ones controlled by the government, because its always better to have a government-run monopoly controlled by elected officials, than, say people with Business Administration degrees.

Oh yes very good although if the said government is corrupt you have a problem and then degrees of Business Administration will not help! Could check out what's gone corrupt but that's all basically.

and for heaven's sake stop looking at American for anything for once!

Absolutely, there's nothing to be learned from there; in fact it sucks so badly, the US has a huge problem with net emigration. California is expected to be emptied within the next decade, its such a bad place to live.



.
.
.

was that dry enough? new thread anyone? j/k j/k...

Indeed I agree with you in what you said.

[Syberberg]

All in all, I'd say the probability of Iraq either directly or indirectly attacking Israel with WMD to be not impossible, but so extremely unlikely as not really worth any weight.

I'm going to have a hard time proving the intent of the former regime with pure evidence, but I'm not so sure Israel would agree: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/ ... 9037.shtml

Or from Philip Zelikow of the 9/11 commission:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

And I think that's pretty much where the truth lies; the USA cannot and will not admit the war was to protect Israel (and the consequences of an Israel-Iraq war), and its actually better for the government to have people think "its about oil!" than it is to have this out there.

Israel can say what they like. Interesting articles, but in the light of the actual facts as gathered by the UNSCOM on the ground in Iraq after 1991 and during the inspections prior to the invasion, completely false and/or exaggerated. Slthough I do do agree, it probably was an unstated aim of the Bush Administration, given their close ties with AIPAC and the far right of Israeli politics.

Also, the American MSM is noted as being pro-Israeli and not giving a balanced view of the situation regarding Israel/Palestine, or just Israel in general than the European MSM. The only confirmed country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons is Israel. They also haven't signed up to the NPT, nor will they allow IAEA or UN weapons inspectors to examine their facilities. When it comes to WMD, Israel hasn't got a moral leg to stand on because of they way the Israeli government behaves in regards to inspections. At least Saddam allowed them into the country and only kicked them out when the US intelligence agencies subverted them...hang on, subverted might be a bit strong, but it's for lack of a better word.

As for the logic about the governments wanting people to think it was about oil, rather than protecting Israel, why didn't they begin their case for war with that, ie "We're invading Iraq to get at their oil fields", rather than use forged documents about yellowcake uranium from Niger (proven fake before the invasion), not making their intell available to the UN inspectors under Hans Blix?

Why were the caveats from UK and US intelligence agencies ignored and in some cases removed?

Why did the BBC constantly question the Blair government about WMD evidence, or lack thereof, during the build up to the invasion?

Why was it widely known (at the time) in the UK that the WMD propaganda, as put out by the Blair government in the run up to the invasion, was suspect?

Even without the use of hindsight, the case for going to war with Iraq over WMD could be pulled apart by getting and examining the UNSCOM reports from 1991/92.

Why weren't the UN inspectors under Hans Blix allowed to continue with their inspections, even after the order to fully co-operate with them was given by Saddam?

Original article by Hans Blix, published March 20th, 2008.

Why did the Attorney General of the UK, change his legal advice from illegal to legal 12 hours before the crucial vote in the House of Commons?

[nodubmanshouts]

I'm not sure how either answering or not answering any of those questions would either strengthen of weaken my case. I've already stated that the evidence for WMD may have been weak, but the magnitude of the risk involved in not acting on it was too high, and that is why the coalition acted on it.

[nodubmanshouts]

Indeed I agree with you in what you said.

too dry then, apparently