Thank you Bush, Blair....Neocons?
12 February 2011, 01:46 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Bush, Blair....Neocons?
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!
?
12 February 2011, 10:52 AM
#4
It's easy to scoff, but Tony raises an interesting point here. Even if Iraq and Afghanistan are still a long way from full political stability and democracy as we understand it in the West, you can't completely rule out the possibility that the mere fact of witnessing the previous authoritarian regimes overthrown there helped embolden the populations of Tunisia and Egypt to rise up against their own corrupt leaders. I wouldn't for a second suggest it was the only thing that prompted them to do it, but it might have played a part.
12 February 2011, 10:57 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes amazing what illegally invading a country, causing the deaths of a million civilians and reducing much of the place to rubble can do for a region 
Iran next
Iran next
Trending Topics
12 February 2011, 11:11 AM
#8
Speaking for myself, and I won't dispute that this is diverging somewhat from the premise advanced in Tony's launch, I would say that in this case Bush and Blair are very much accidental heroes. That still doesn't change the fact though that you'd be very hard pushed to prove that if Saddam and the Mullahs were in power today, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would still have happened.
12 February 2011, 01:52 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
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)
12 February 2011, 04:24 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Millions have not died, those upper estimates are absurd and made up by people with an agenda.
12 February 2011, 04:58 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 February 2011, 05:21 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to scoff, but Tony raises an interesting point here. Even if Iraq and Afghanistan are still a long way from full political stability and democracy as we understand it in the West, you can't completely rule out the possibility that the mere fact of witnessing the previous authoritarian regimes overthrown there helped embolden the populations of Tunisia and Egypt to rise up against their own corrupt leaders. I wouldn't for a second suggest it was the only thing that prompted them to do it, but it might have played a part.
12 February 2011, 06:00 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it would, as it would to the families of all those soldiers killed in Iraq and still being killed weekly in Afghanistan fighting wars that are not legal, not ours to fight and are unwinnable anyway!
12 February 2011, 06:02 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes in the last 3 decades but it has been under emergency rule the whole time. Take a longer time frame and is has been rather unstable, it's quite extraordinarily really; Byzantium, Islamic empires, Ottomans, Military dynasties, French, British.
12 February 2011, 06:14 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would it have made a difference? Legality is just a bit of paper.
12 February 2011, 06:35 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laws are laws and we can't pick and choose just becuase it suits our agenda. Or rather we obviously can, but we shouldn't be able to.
12 February 2011, 08:02 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is poor even by your standards. Are you saying that laws are just pieces of paper therefore we should do as we please? Where does this stop? Just at killing a million 'darkies' or can we go completely lawless and have full scale anarchy across the, so called ,civilsed world.
Laws are laws and we can't pick and choose just becuase it suits our agenda. Or rather we obviously can, but we shouldn't be able to.
Laws are laws and we can't pick and choose just becuase it suits our agenda. Or rather we obviously can, but we shouldn't be able to.
Freedom has never been secured by bureaucrats drafting laws and one being subservient to them.
Do you know who drafts these laws? Did you vote for them?
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 12 February 2011 at 08:04 PM.
12 February 2011, 08:24 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens then if Iran get a nuclear capapbility and decide to attack Israel? I mean they may see themselves as freeing the Palestiniains who they see as needing to be freed in much the same way as you see that the Iraqis and the Afghans needed to be freed. Of course international law and treaties preclude them doing this, but according to you they are irrelevant.
Or do you mean they are only irrelevant when it is the West doing the attacking?
12 February 2011, 08:31 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the Iranian authoritah are one step ahead...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...r-house-arrest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...r-house-arrest
12 February 2011, 08:42 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
You have to laugh – TDW's arguments are so confused and self contradictory that you wonder if he sat in a room alone long enough, would he start an argument with himself – i think he would tbh
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 12 February 2011 at 08:44 PM.
12 February 2011, 09:00 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then so they are largely irrelevant according to you.
What happens then if Iran get a nuclear capapbility and decide to attack Israel? I mean they may see themselves as freeing the Palestiniains who they see as needing to be freed in much the same way as you see that the Iraqis and the Afghans needed to be freed. Of course international law and treaties preclude them doing this, but according to you they are irrelevant.
Or do you mean they are only irrelevant when it is the West doing the attacking?
What happens then if Iran get a nuclear capapbility and decide to attack Israel? I mean they may see themselves as freeing the Palestiniains who they see as needing to be freed in much the same way as you see that the Iraqis and the Afghans needed to be freed. Of course international law and treaties preclude them doing this, but according to you they are irrelevant.
Or do you mean they are only irrelevant when it is the West doing the attacking?
That's not the real politik.
What would happen is Israel would defend itself and not bleat on impotently about international law.