Thank you Bush, Blair....Neocons?
12 February 2011, 09:12 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 February 2011, 09:17 PM
#35
Furthermore I don't hold the aforementioned as bastions of morality and legality anyway, just like Israel.
12 February 2011, 09:19 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on I was jts using Isarael as an example, we don't need another thread with Tony telling us how hard done to Israel is and how those nasty Palestinians are really the aggressors 
12 February 2011, 09:48 PM
#37
Mubarak's Egypt was pretty much bankrolled by America and for this Egypt help maintained stability in the middle east and provided support for Israel. Now that Mubarak has gone, Mubarak's major opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood has a real chance to get a foothold into power. There is real possibility that Egypt could become a hardline country similar to Iran and could destabilise the Middle East.
12 February 2011, 09:51 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never criticised them on the basis of law.
13 February 2011, 08:52 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leslie if 3650 are dying each year in Iraq due to terrorism that is a big improvement from 3 years ago! and less than were dying each year under Saddam.
The comment about millions dying with the attempt to make Iraq a democracy are we saying that it was better to leave Saddam in power than lose a million lives to bring democracy?
If so lucky we didnt think like that in 1940 or we would have negotiated Peace with Hitler after Dunkirk rather than bankrupt the country, continue fighting a war in which 10's millions then die but as democracy was restored in Western Europe we say that is acceptable (Poland was still occupied by another country so did we lose)
The comment about millions dying with the attempt to make Iraq a democracy are we saying that it was better to leave Saddam in power than lose a million lives to bring democracy?
If so lucky we didnt think like that in 1940 or we would have negotiated Peace with Hitler after Dunkirk rather than bankrupt the country, continue fighting a war in which 10's millions then die but as democracy was restored in Western Europe we say that is acceptable (Poland was still occupied by another country so did we lose)
Why was the very first bit of reconstruction after the attack to repair the oil wells? What does that tell you?
If a country has a bad leader then it is down to the people to depose him, bit like the Egyptians' action when you think about it!
It is internationally illegal to attack a country in order to depose its leader.
Les
13 February 2011, 04:16 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How well planned and successful was the planning for after the attack was finished with a country with a destroyed inrastructure and how safe would you feel with so much terrorist activity still going on?
Why was the very first bit of reconstruction after the attack to repair the oil wells? What does that tell you?
If a country has a bad leader then it is down to the people to depose him, bit like the Egyptians' action when you think about it!
It is internationally illegal to attack a country in order to depose its leader.
Les
Why was the very first bit of reconstruction after the attack to repair the oil wells? What does that tell you?
If a country has a bad leader then it is down to the people to depose him, bit like the Egyptians' action when you think about it!
It is internationally illegal to attack a country in order to depose its leader.
Les
13 February 2011, 05:27 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So? Legality is not morality. It could still be the right thing to do. Was WW2 an unjust war then?
13 February 2011, 06:13 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
quite a good documentry on the iraq war/occupation is
no end in sight (very unsensationalist - just interviews with those involved)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/
quite a US centric view -- but one does leave with the impression that the general welfare of the Iraqi's was the last thing on the US administration mind, "stuff happens" after all
no end in sight (very unsensationalist - just interviews with those involved)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912593/
quite a US centric view -- but one does leave with the impression that the general welfare of the Iraqi's was the last thing on the US administration mind, "stuff happens" after all
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 13 February 2011 at 06:18 PM.
13 February 2011, 06:18 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Bush and Blair. Tunisia and Egypt has proved the Neoconservatives right...invading Iraq, removing Saddam, and setting up a democracy in Iraq has helped to spread democracy in the region. We are finally seeing the result of their good work.
Well done!
?
Well done!
?
I have come to the conclusion that you must knock one out everytime someone responds to one of your 'Contentious' threads and that is why you keep doing them.
So go ahead, you can knock another one out now, but this thread is as ridiculous as you are. Thread needs to die a death right now IMO.
Asif
14 February 2011, 12:20 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 2 point! You have tried that one on before and it is quite wrong, and senseless for that matter. We entered a state of war with Germany because they walked into Poland and we had agreed beforehand and warned Hitler that an attack on Poland would result in war between Germany and the UK. After that of course we were defending our own country from the German attacks in Europe and on our own country. Why do you persist in saying that we attacked Germany primarily to depose Hitler? It is absolutely legal to defend your country or another friendly counry from attack.
Let me remind you that Hitler in fact deposed himself with a pistol in company with Eva Braun who poisoned herself in his bunker in Berlin!
Let me also remind you that we initially attacked Iraq in company with the USA because SH had decided to try to walk into and take over Kuwait for the second time. This was a perfectly legal international action since we were responsible to defend Kuwait. He could not say he had not been warned since we gathered our forces in the Middle East when he threatened Kuwait before that. He backed off that time!
Don't forget of course that at the end of the first actual attack on Iraq that SH was deliberately left in power after the cease fire.
I really hope you have got it straight in your mind now TDW and that you can differentiate between the reasons for attacking Iraq and the subsequent actions either in accordance with international law...or not as actually happened.
Les
14 February 2011, 12:28 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first answer is...yes it was. It was reported exactly as having happened at the time and justification was attempted by the attacking alliance to be so that the Iraqi's could pay for the repair work which was necessary to their infrastrucure which the alliance had destroyed.
No 2 point! You have tried that one on before and it is quite wrong, and senseless for that matter. We entered a state of war with Germany because they walked into Poland and we had agreed beforehand and warned Hitler that an attack on Poland would result in war between Germany and the UK. After that of course we were defending our own country from the German attacks in Europe and on our own country. Why do you persist in saying that we attacked Germany primarily to depose Hitler? It is absolutely legal to defend your country or another friendly counry from attack.
Let me remind you that Hitler in fact deposed himself with a pistol in company with Eva Braun who poisoned herself in his bunker in Berlin!
Let me also remind you that we initially attacked Iraq in company with the USA because SH had decided to try to walk into and take over Kuwait for the second time. This was a perfectly legal international action since we were responsible to defend Kuwait. He could not say he had not been warned since we gathered our forces in the Middle East when he threatened Kuwait before that. He backed off that time!
Don't forget of course that at the end of the first actual attack on Iraq that SH was deliberately left in power after the cease fire.
I really hope you have got it straight in your mind now TDW and that you can differentiate between the reasons for attacking Iraq and the subsequent actions either in accordance with international law...or not as actually happened.
Les
No 2 point! You have tried that one on before and it is quite wrong, and senseless for that matter. We entered a state of war with Germany because they walked into Poland and we had agreed beforehand and warned Hitler that an attack on Poland would result in war between Germany and the UK. After that of course we were defending our own country from the German attacks in Europe and on our own country. Why do you persist in saying that we attacked Germany primarily to depose Hitler? It is absolutely legal to defend your country or another friendly counry from attack.
Let me remind you that Hitler in fact deposed himself with a pistol in company with Eva Braun who poisoned herself in his bunker in Berlin!
Let me also remind you that we initially attacked Iraq in company with the USA because SH had decided to try to walk into and take over Kuwait for the second time. This was a perfectly legal international action since we were responsible to defend Kuwait. He could not say he had not been warned since we gathered our forces in the Middle East when he threatened Kuwait before that. He backed off that time!
Don't forget of course that at the end of the first actual attack on Iraq that SH was deliberately left in power after the cease fire.
I really hope you have got it straight in your mind now TDW and that you can differentiate between the reasons for attacking Iraq and the subsequent actions either in accordance with international law...or not as actually happened.
Les
14 February 2011, 06:28 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first answer is...yes it was. It was reported exactly as having happened at the time and justification was attempted by the attacking alliance to be so that the Iraqi's could pay for the repair work which was necessary to their infrastrucure which the alliance had destroyed.
It has taken years for them even to be offered for tender to international oil companies, the fields remain in a state of massive underinvestment.
Last time I checked the Iraqi government needed oil revenues so it would make sense for them to secure their principle means of revenue!
No 2 point! You have tried that one on before and it is quite wrong, and senseless for that matter. We entered a state of war with Germany because they walked into Poland and we had agreed beforehand and warned Hitler that an attack on Poland would result in war between Germany and the UK. After that of course we were defending our own country from the German attacks in Europe and on our own country. Why do you persist in saying that we attacked Germany primarily to depose Hitler? It is absolutely legal to defend your country or another friendly counry from attack.
Germany never attacked us BTW, they attack Poland. We could have contained Hitler but we drove on into Germany! Was that self-defense?
Did you agree with the sanctions against Apartheid South Africa BTW? But I thought foreign domestic conflicts and oppression was the foreign peoples' problem to decide? Not our business!?
Did you support actions to help Kosova?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 14 February 2011 at 06:29 PM.
15 February 2011, 10:53 AM
#49
That doesn't mean the first thing they fixed is the oil fields.
It has taken years for them even to be offered for tender to international oil companies, the fields remain in a state of massive underinvestment.
Last time I checked the Iraqi government needed oil revenues so it would make sense for them to secure their principle means of revenue!
It has taken years for them even to be offered for tender to international oil companies, the fields remain in a state of massive underinvestment.
Last time I checked the Iraqi government needed oil revenues so it would make sense for them to secure their principle means of revenue!
Do you not think there may have been a conflict of interest within the Bush administration?
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html
15 February 2011, 11:11 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you not think there may have been a conflict of interest within the Bush administration?
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/oilinfra.html
15 February 2011, 11:55 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 February 2011, 12:17 PM
#53
Where have I said that? That is what you're presuming. I stated a conflict of interests, government ministers deciding foreign policy and sitting on the boards of companies awarded contracts. That is a conflict of interests in my opinion or perhaps I'm being cynical. After all the powers that be would maintain the utmost integrity, and ensure they weren't personally gaining as a result of their policy making.
15 February 2011, 07:23 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)
15 February 2011, 07:55 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 February 2011, 08:59 PM
#59
No of course not! FFS James you've known me long enough to know I don't talk in riddles or have a hidden agenda. Saddam needed to go yes but it should have been done with a UN mandate. Furthermore why should individuals within the Bush administration gain financially as a result of the war. Do you not see this causes great feeling amongst not only people in Iraq but the world over?
I doubt we'll find even ground on this admittedly contentious issue.
I doubt we'll find even ground on this admittedly contentious issue.