Congratulaions to the USA
Posted by: Mick P on 20 January 2005
Chaps
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
May I, on behalf of the British people, congratulate you all on the innaurgaration of President Bush.
Thank you for you common sense. We have a lot to thank you for. You beat the liberal pinkos.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by JonR
Mick,
You said:- "When someone like you comes along accusing the elected leader, who they voted in, of being a war criminal etc, you get right up their noses."
and earlier jayd said:-
"I'm an American, and I'm telling you here and now, you're the worst sort of outsider, you're fooling no one, and America doesn't need you"
I would venture to suggest that it is you who is getting up (American) voters' noses with this embarrassing faux-triumphalism.
JR
You said:- "When someone like you comes along accusing the elected leader, who they voted in, of being a war criminal etc, you get right up their noses."
and earlier jayd said:-
"I'm an American, and I'm telling you here and now, you're the worst sort of outsider, you're fooling no one, and America doesn't need you"
I would venture to suggest that it is you who is getting up (American) voters' noses with this embarrassing faux-triumphalism.
JR
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
Mick,
I am not seeking to alienate any voters, but at the same time I don't want them to be under any dis-illusions about who they voted for.
I don't see why or how my views are more likely to alienate voters than, say yours. I also don't accept that protest marches necessarily constitute 'bad behaviour'.
I also see little evidence that 'getting up people's noses' is something that has ever bothered you.
Anyway I'm off for the weekend but quite happy to pick this up on Monday.
Have a good one!
I am not seeking to alienate any voters, but at the same time I don't want them to be under any dis-illusions about who they voted for.
I don't see why or how my views are more likely to alienate voters than, say yours. I also don't accept that protest marches necessarily constitute 'bad behaviour'.
I also see little evidence that 'getting up people's noses' is something that has ever bothered you.
Anyway I'm off for the weekend but quite happy to pick this up on Monday.
Have a good one!
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Jon
I was congratulating the American electorate who supported and elected Mr Bush.
Jayd is on the side of the lost cause, which is more a less as a result of the daft way they conducted themselves before and during the election.
I quite like him because he helped Mr Bush win.
Regards
Mick
I was congratulating the American electorate who supported and elected Mr Bush.
Jayd is on the side of the lost cause, which is more a less as a result of the daft way they conducted themselves before and during the election.
I quite like him because he helped Mr Bush win.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Brown:
... Did you read the Chomsky essay earlier in the thread? You didn't bother responding to this either.
Richard,
Interesting though the Chomsky essay is, it must be read in the light of our knowledge of Chomsky's own political stance.
You may or may not be aware that Chomsky has been taking some serious criticism even from his would be allies on the left. His writings in recent years, particularly post 9/11, have come under considerable fire.
The following are examples (full article here). There are plenty more.
quote:
by Christopher Hitchens:
He [Chomsky] has now been impeached by his own standards, since scrutiny of the evidence does not bear him out on Serbia or Afghanistan or Iraq. It didn't bear him out on Cambodia either, though he was never a "Holocaust denier" or anything like it. And he has, I think, ceased to be of any use to young people who might pardonably doubt the official story. The position he took, comparing the attack on the World Trade Center to an admittedly criminal Clintonian strike on Sudan (and virtually concluding that the latter was worse!) showed the absolute exhaustion of the glib "double standards" school, as I point out extensively in Love, Poverty and War.
Even worse ...
quote:
by Oliver Kamm:
I shall finally discuss one point that Hitchens raises but makes light of – Chomsky’s approach to criticism - and one that he doesn’t – Chomsky’s dishonest treatment of source material – that I consider destroy any claims for Chomsky as a serious and reputable, let alone scholarly, political analyst.
With friends like these, we needn't even delve into what his enemies on the right are saying.
Even academics have their agendas.
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Jon
I was congratulating the American electorate who supported and elected Mr Bush.
Mick
Actually, you weren't. You were snidely congratulating roughly half of them, while adding
quote:
You beat the liberal pinkos.
in order to make sure you offended the other half. You are not the gentleman you purport to be; a gentleman would have recognized the implication of starting such a thread, and either exercised discretion (you'll need to look that one up) or expressed himself with much greater tact (and since you've got the dictionary out...). You are, in fact, simply an ass, and not a particularly sharp-witted one.
The fact that you seem driven to repeatedly and quite publicly prove that you're an ass, well, that's one for your therapist to address.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Jayd
You can continue thinking I am an ass and I will continue thinking you are a fool who always helps the other side win.
No one in their right mind wants you for a friend.
You can continue thinking I am an ass and I will continue thinking you are a fool who always helps the other side win.
No one in their right mind wants you for a friend.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by jayd
Thanks Mick. I've let all my friends know that there's a paunchy British idiot who believes they're all mad. You've made them all smile.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Jayd
Like all bums who lose, you resort to inventions. You show me where I said your friends were mad.
The sad truth is that you have proved yourself to be inadequate, ill judged and a bit of a failure.
You are not just a sad ambassador for your country, you are also a sad ambassador for humanity.
Like all bums who lose, you resort to inventions. You show me where I said your friends were mad.
The sad truth is that you have proved yourself to be inadequate, ill judged and a bit of a failure.
You are not just a sad ambassador for your country, you are also a sad ambassador for humanity.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Jayd
You can continue thinking I am an ass and I will continue thinking you are a fool who always helps the other side win.
No one in their right mind wants you for a friend.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The sad truth is that you have proved yourself to be inadequate, ill judged and a bit of a failure.
You are not just a sad ambassador for your country, you are also a sad ambassador for humanity.
That someone with your inherent, deep-seated ugliness believes this of me is the sweetest proof yet that I've lived my life well. I'll say no more on the matter, for through your continued posts you make all my points better than I could hope to.
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Tristram
Mick.
I am interested in your assessment of the current and future energy situation. Having attented a presentation by Henry Groppie a few months ago, I am of the impression that the long term price of oil is more likely to be higher than in the range that you suggest.
What is the basis for your assessment? and what is your timeframe?
tw
I am interested in your assessment of the current and future energy situation. Having attented a presentation by Henry Groppie a few months ago, I am of the impression that the long term price of oil is more likely to be higher than in the range that you suggest.
What is the basis for your assessment? and what is your timeframe?
tw
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Mick P
Tristram
The price of oil is governed by supply and demand and in the forseeable future, supply will accomodate demand.
It is also influenced by world stability and also by economist agreeing a sensible price that will allow the producing countries to ecomonically grow without harming the west.
The "balanced" price is regarded as $18-$24 per barrel. That is the price that allows economic development for the producing countries which will not harm the western economies.
The lastest forecast (as far as I know) is that oil will drop to $30 by the end of 2006 and even further in 2007 if projected supply data is correct. Remember it was $24 not so long ago.
If there are no wars etc, there is enough oil sloshing around to bring the price down even further. China and Russia are expanding their economies but there is more than enough underground oil to meet their demands as well as exporting to the west.
Both China and Russia have signed deals which makes it difficult for them to reduce supplies in order to force the price up. That effectively screws up OPEC who now only produce less than 40% of world wide volumes.
I would guess that prices will hover around $30 and then who knows. The good news is that there is plenty of it around.
Another point to remember is that the world economy is still expanding at prices in excess of $30, so any further reductions may be regarded as a bonus.
The Chinese economy is expected to slow slow and that will also reduce demand for a intermitent period.
Overall the signs are still fairly good.
Regards
Mick
The price of oil is governed by supply and demand and in the forseeable future, supply will accomodate demand.
It is also influenced by world stability and also by economist agreeing a sensible price that will allow the producing countries to ecomonically grow without harming the west.
The "balanced" price is regarded as $18-$24 per barrel. That is the price that allows economic development for the producing countries which will not harm the western economies.
The lastest forecast (as far as I know) is that oil will drop to $30 by the end of 2006 and even further in 2007 if projected supply data is correct. Remember it was $24 not so long ago.
If there are no wars etc, there is enough oil sloshing around to bring the price down even further. China and Russia are expanding their economies but there is more than enough underground oil to meet their demands as well as exporting to the west.
Both China and Russia have signed deals which makes it difficult for them to reduce supplies in order to force the price up. That effectively screws up OPEC who now only produce less than 40% of world wide volumes.
I would guess that prices will hover around $30 and then who knows. The good news is that there is plenty of it around.
Another point to remember is that the world economy is still expanding at prices in excess of $30, so any further reductions may be regarded as a bonus.
The Chinese economy is expected to slow slow and that will also reduce demand for a intermitent period.
Overall the signs are still fairly good.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by John K R
To go back to the original post you say “We have a lot to thank you for” what in particular are you referring to? And who are the “we” in this statement?
Certainly not the British people who you contemptuously purport to speak for. Britain has been alienated within Europe because of the Iraq fiasco, Blair is seen as Bushes puppet and we are still losing lives as well as financially due to the deceit that led us to war.
Americans have to thank Bush for 1,300 dead Americans, over 10,000 wounded and over 100,000 dead Iraqis, and now the government has finally admitted they were wrong. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. US news paper quote
Thanks also for ignoring the laws of the land prompting a letter from Amnesty International voicing the very strong concerns about human rights violations including torture. And his fellow Americans have suffered attacks on workers jobs, health, safety and civil rights.
The world in general is a more dangerous place both due to the unrest caused by actions in the Middle East and the abysmal record on environmental issues too numerous to list here (anti-Kyoto is the tip of the iceberg).
So please tell what we are thanking the Bush voters for?
To quote Mick Parry
Well how many friends has this thread won you?
JohnKR
Certainly not the British people who you contemptuously purport to speak for. Britain has been alienated within Europe because of the Iraq fiasco, Blair is seen as Bushes puppet and we are still losing lives as well as financially due to the deceit that led us to war.
Americans have to thank Bush for 1,300 dead Americans, over 10,000 wounded and over 100,000 dead Iraqis, and now the government has finally admitted they were wrong. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. US news paper quote
quote:
The White House acknowledged Wednesday that its hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - a two-year search costing millions of dollars - has closed down without finding the stockpiles that President Bush cited as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Bush's spokesman said the president had no regrets about invading Iraq.
"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Thanks also for ignoring the laws of the land prompting a letter from Amnesty International voicing the very strong concerns about human rights violations including torture. And his fellow Americans have suffered attacks on workers jobs, health, safety and civil rights.
The world in general is a more dangerous place both due to the unrest caused by actions in the Middle East and the abysmal record on environmental issues too numerous to list here (anti-Kyoto is the tip of the iceberg).
So please tell what we are thanking the Bush voters for?
To quote Mick Parry
quote:
no one likes smart asses
Well how many friends has this thread won you?
JohnKR
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
"It's a country run by dangerous, religious, unhinged megalomaniacs"
Iran is a repressive, totalitarian theocracy but it's basically an essentially sane repressive, totalitarian theocracy. And the reason it's trying to build nuclear weapons is beucase it just about the only way it can dramatically increase it's political influence and (given what just happend to Iraq) increase it's security against foreign invasision.
When the Iranian parliament went into session for the year on May 28, all the delegates got up and chanted "Death to America", chanted it in unison, hard-liners and reformers alike.
You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes the 'essentially sane', Matthew.
quote:
Or do people really think that as soon as Iran has a nucleaur bomb the "mad mullahs" will all high five each other and immediately press the Big Red Button that destroys Tel Aviv 20 mins later?
I think that it's a distinct possibility. Are you saying it's not possible?
If not, what degree of possibility is acceptable, 20%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%?
Look, we've been here before and I would hate to bore bigmick again, so I'll just link to a blog whose view I totally agree with on this issue. He also makes his points far, far more clearly than I can.
"Mullah-palooza" - Done With Mirrors
Regards
Steve M
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Lomo
Iran ! if Bush and his cronies will leave it alone there will be NO trouble BUT if he handles that country as he did Iraq ,having NO proof of any weapons there and just making excuses to justify his invasion of said country than there will be more trouble than the western world has ever seen, as all Muslims around the world will retaliate to the third invasion of a country of their belief.
Bush had not even finished with Afganistan ,had NOT found Osama ben Laden before he went to another country to "Liberate" it from oppression and please all of you have a good look what is happening there , no petrol for their cars ,electricity unstable ,water every now and then and you just never know if you get home at night from whatever job you are doing if you are lucky enough to have a job.
I'm sure you have all heard of the saying "people who live in glass-houses should not throw stones at others - they might be returned "
No, I'm not a Muslim but a woman who is fed-up with the injustice in this world and the excuses used by politicions to justify their behavior .
Mrs Lomo
Now that shes got that off her chest...
Bush had not even finished with Afganistan ,had NOT found Osama ben Laden before he went to another country to "Liberate" it from oppression and please all of you have a good look what is happening there , no petrol for their cars ,electricity unstable ,water every now and then and you just never know if you get home at night from whatever job you are doing if you are lucky enough to have a job.
I'm sure you have all heard of the saying "people who live in glass-houses should not throw stones at others - they might be returned "
No, I'm not a Muslim but a woman who is fed-up with the injustice in this world and the excuses used by politicions to justify their behavior .
Mrs Lomo
Now that shes got that off her chest...
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Mick P
JKR
GWB has been endorsed by his electorate.
On that basis, you cannot expect him to be really concerned about you think.
Basically he has a clear mandate and he will do it, and good luck to him.
Thats all that need be said.
Regards
Mick
GWB has been endorsed by his electorate.
On that basis, you cannot expect him to be really concerned about you think.
Basically he has a clear mandate and he will do it, and good luck to him.
Thats all that need be said.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by John K R
Mic
Does the same reason apply to this "charismatic leader"?
The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Thats just what happened with the other bloke as well.
it is if you are ignoring all the questions of who should be giving thanks and what for.
Regards John.
quote:
GWB has been endorsed by his electorate.
On that basis, you cannot expect him to be really concerned about you think.
Does the same reason apply to this "charismatic leader"?
The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
quote:
Basically he has a clear mandate and he will do it, and good luck to him.
Thats just what happened with the other bloke as well.
quote:
Thats all that need be said.
it is if you are ignoring all the questions of who should be giving thanks and what for.
Regards John.
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by matthewr
"all the delegates got up and chanted "Death to America", chanted it in unison, hard-liners and reformers alike"
It may well seem all very odd from a western POV and certainly a less than decorous way for a parliament to behave but you probably need to put that into context. Are they really mad or are they a bunch of dictators playing to their TV audience? If they really are mad how come they weren't outsmarted by the sane guys who obviosuly have a major advantage? Or are you saying that Iranians suffer madness more than other peoples?
Besides I'm not convinced its fundamentally any different than President Bush's endless rhetoric about Freedom and Death to Terrorists which ultimately translated into starting a war in a place where there were no terrorists and bombing lots of innocent people and replacing them with some bona fida seriously deranged Terrorists who appear to be the only ones not suffering much in the way of death.
"I think that it's a distinct possibility"
But people like the CIA and MI5 don't. Or rather they offer rational advice about Iran's nuclear program based on the classical notions of risk assessment such as Threat = Capability + Intent which comes about from long term strategic analysis rather than reading some guy's blog.
Which brings us back the "Power of Nightmares". The Bush administration would very much like people to believe (as you apparently do) that Iran is actively pursuing some kind of Nuclear armageddon beucase, once everyone is absolutely terrified and consumed with apocolyptic visions of the future, we'll all sign up a radical agenda that may well include anything and everything from bombing people to starting another war. Can you remember the last time we had dire warnings of strategic WMD threats in the middle east about which "Something must be done" but turned out to be not only untrue but not actually based on any credible evidence?
Remember as well that Bush is being "advised" by people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who, as you know, have a bad history with this sort of thing. To wit, when told by the CIA that the Soviet Union did not have a secret weapons program devoloping some unpecified form of advanced weaponry with the express intent of destroying America they concluded that the very lack of evidence for this meant it must exist in a form so clever we can't find it as the evil intentions of the "Mad Ruskies" were taken as self-evident.
Which is not to say that Iran's nuclear program is not a grave cause for concern (clearly it is) but you need a) to retain some perspective and caution and b) expect to see some convincing indication of the reality of the threat before we get too carried away. Especially as we know that Bush defeinitely has a track record of ignoring intelligence and exaggerating threat for political reasons.
Matthew
It may well seem all very odd from a western POV and certainly a less than decorous way for a parliament to behave but you probably need to put that into context. Are they really mad or are they a bunch of dictators playing to their TV audience? If they really are mad how come they weren't outsmarted by the sane guys who obviosuly have a major advantage? Or are you saying that Iranians suffer madness more than other peoples?
Besides I'm not convinced its fundamentally any different than President Bush's endless rhetoric about Freedom and Death to Terrorists which ultimately translated into starting a war in a place where there were no terrorists and bombing lots of innocent people and replacing them with some bona fida seriously deranged Terrorists who appear to be the only ones not suffering much in the way of death.
"I think that it's a distinct possibility"
But people like the CIA and MI5 don't. Or rather they offer rational advice about Iran's nuclear program based on the classical notions of risk assessment such as Threat = Capability + Intent which comes about from long term strategic analysis rather than reading some guy's blog.
Which brings us back the "Power of Nightmares". The Bush administration would very much like people to believe (as you apparently do) that Iran is actively pursuing some kind of Nuclear armageddon beucase, once everyone is absolutely terrified and consumed with apocolyptic visions of the future, we'll all sign up a radical agenda that may well include anything and everything from bombing people to starting another war. Can you remember the last time we had dire warnings of strategic WMD threats in the middle east about which "Something must be done" but turned out to be not only untrue but not actually based on any credible evidence?
Remember as well that Bush is being "advised" by people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who, as you know, have a bad history with this sort of thing. To wit, when told by the CIA that the Soviet Union did not have a secret weapons program devoloping some unpecified form of advanced weaponry with the express intent of destroying America they concluded that the very lack of evidence for this meant it must exist in a form so clever we can't find it as the evil intentions of the "Mad Ruskies" were taken as self-evident.
Which is not to say that Iran's nuclear program is not a grave cause for concern (clearly it is) but you need a) to retain some perspective and caution and b) expect to see some convincing indication of the reality of the threat before we get too carried away. Especially as we know that Bush defeinitely has a track record of ignoring intelligence and exaggerating threat for political reasons.
Matthew
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Mick P
Matthew
I think we can safely assume that Iran is next on the list. We just need to sit back and wait for it to happen.
Regards
Mick
I think we can safely assume that Iran is next on the list. We just need to sit back and wait for it to happen.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by John K R:
... it is if you are ignoring all the questions of who should be giving thanks and what for.
Ok, let's look at this.
Firstly, if the opinion polls are to be believed (which show a 60%+ US approval rating), many Afghans are thankful to the US. Not only have they been freed from the oppressive and murderous regime of the Taliban, but they have a working democracy in the country (although naturally, not yet perfect). They even have 3 women members of the cabinet. This is a far cry from the days before the Bush invasion and most of the signs are that the country is moving in the right direction.
Iraq is a far more difficult situation. The study stating that up to 100,000 deaths have resulted from the war is of course well known. Some claim that this figure is overstated as the number of bodies found tends to indicate a much lower total. Even so, there have been a large number of deaths of innocent Iraqis and this is a tragedy.
The death figures must be considered in the light of what happened before. Firstly, according to Unicef, half a million children (500,000) were killed by the sanctions that preceded the war. Of course these sanctions were in place partly at the instigation of the US (although some time before G W Bush's presidency). However, the corruption and incompetence of the 'Oil for Food' debacle also did immense damage.
In the interest of balance it must also be stated that Saddam Hussein was an evil and vicious tyrant, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people (and hundreds of thousands more of Iranians). We shouldn't overlook this.
What of the situation now?
I hope that you will excuse me when I say that I don't think that queuing a long time for petrol has any equivalence with the issues of death caused by either sanctions, Saddam Hussein or the US led war.
Security is the number one issue for the vast majority of Iraqis. So called 'Insurgents' from the Sunni and Baathist communities and from overseas are causing great difficulties for the Iraqis (and of course the US and UK troops). It should be said that their agenda is exclusively one of destruction. They wish for the US troops to leave immediately so they can take their chances in the civil war that would result from their departure.
However, the vast majority of Iraqis wish for a successful democratic procss, starting with the elections at the end of the month. The elections will certainly not be perfect but, despite the threats of death and violence, I would not be surprised to see a very high turnout. Nor will the elections lead immediately to the cessation of violence. However, it will be far more difficult for insurgents to justify attacks against a democratically elected government than against a US imposed one so the situation will hopefully improve. International trade bodies are (believe it or not) starting to predict that a democratic Iraq could become the economic driver for the entire region.
For a well balanced and very interesting article on the significance of the Iraq elections please read this piece in Arab News
And if democracy should succeed in taking hold in Iraq, I believe that other totalitarian regimes in the area could start 'falling to democracy' like a pack of cards. Nor do I believe that US military intervention will be necessary for this to happen. Millions of other oppressed people in the Middle East could well have good reason to be thankful.
I'm well known to be an optimist in a cynical world. I don't believe that G W Bush is a saint, I don't like many of his oil friends and I think that the religious right that he counts among his support are a Gospel or two short of a complete Bible. However, I don't believe in the 'Bush = Hitler' doctrine that seems to be so widely (and hysterically) pushed.
So what are you going to do? Lynch me?
Bring it on.
Steve M
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by matthewr
Steve,
Your view that the essential goodness of Democracy will somehow solve Iraq's problems and lead to this domino effect in the region is, I think, hopelessly naive.
The best outcome from this election (which is so flawed as to not really count as one in a particularly meaningful sense) is that the new government will get the US to agree plans for immediate phased withdrawals. Which is certainly what they will want although it's far from clear as to whether the US will agree.
In the short term though, many think more likely that the election is going make things worse
Matthew
Your view that the essential goodness of Democracy will somehow solve Iraq's problems and lead to this domino effect in the region is, I think, hopelessly naive.
The best outcome from this election (which is so flawed as to not really count as one in a particularly meaningful sense) is that the new government will get the US to agree plans for immediate phased withdrawals. Which is certainly what they will want although it's far from clear as to whether the US will agree.
In the short term though, many think more likely that the election is going make things worse
Matthew
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
Matthew,
Well, if Simon Tisdall in The Guardian says so then it must be true.
Thanks for this quote from the article though, which has giving me the laugh of the week:
While saying it supports elections, Syria's authoritarian Ba'athist regime, already at loggerheads with Washington over Palestine and Lebanon, may not welcome an effective, democratic government in Baghdad.
The Syrian government may not welcome democracy in Iraq. Really? You think?
Also, are you saying that the new government will want to agree plans for immediate, phased withdrawals OR immediate plans for phased withdrawals? If the latter then maybe. If the former, you wanna bet?
Steve M
Well, if Simon Tisdall in The Guardian says so then it must be true.
Thanks for this quote from the article though, which has giving me the laugh of the week:
While saying it supports elections, Syria's authoritarian Ba'athist regime, already at loggerheads with Washington over Palestine and Lebanon, may not welcome an effective, democratic government in Baghdad.
The Syrian government may not welcome democracy in Iraq. Really? You think?
Also, are you saying that the new government will want to agree plans for immediate, phased withdrawals OR immediate plans for phased withdrawals? If the latter then maybe. If the former, you wanna bet?
Steve M
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by matthewr
Steve,
Since you are so fond of quoting and linking freeper blogs (which are unchecked/subbed and have little or no legitimacy, journalistic or otherwise) I think rolling your eyes becuase it's the Guardian is perhaps not your best bet.
Still you will note that "Simon Tisdall in The Guardian" managed to find quotes from Iraqis, various experts and the likes of Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft.
My point about the Iraqi view of occupation is that it's my impression the only people who don't want the troops to go ASAP are the Iraqis currently running the country becuase the US has devoted a major military force to keeping them in power. I am fairly certain that a major priority of the new "government" from Day 1 will be getting the Americans out.
As to the question of immediacy, there will -- since post-election Iraq will now be a democratic sovereign nation -- be little justification for US imposed pre-conditions to the start of a withdrawal so the US response to be asked to leave will be something of an acid test regarding their intentions towards Iraq.
Matthew
Since you are so fond of quoting and linking freeper blogs (which are unchecked/subbed and have little or no legitimacy, journalistic or otherwise) I think rolling your eyes becuase it's the Guardian is perhaps not your best bet.
Still you will note that "Simon Tisdall in The Guardian" managed to find quotes from Iraqis, various experts and the likes of Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft.
My point about the Iraqi view of occupation is that it's my impression the only people who don't want the troops to go ASAP are the Iraqis currently running the country becuase the US has devoted a major military force to keeping them in power. I am fairly certain that a major priority of the new "government" from Day 1 will be getting the Americans out.
As to the question of immediacy, there will -- since post-election Iraq will now be a democratic sovereign nation -- be little justification for US imposed pre-conditions to the start of a withdrawal so the US response to be asked to leave will be something of an acid test regarding their intentions towards Iraq.
Matthew
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
My point about the Iraqi view of occupation is that it's my impression the only people who don't want the troops to go ASAP are the Iraqis currently running the country becuase the US has devoted a major military force to keeping them in power. I am fairly certain that a major priority of the new "government" from Day 1 will be getting the Americans out.
As to the question of immediacy, there will -- since post-election Iraq will now be a democratic sovereign nation -- be little justification for US imposed pre-conditions to the start of a withdrawal so the US response to be asked to leave will be something of an acid test regarding their intentions towards Iraq.
Matthew,
My view is that The USA would want to pull out their troops as soon as possible. As you say, the acid test will be how they respond after they're asked to leave.
Certainly the Iraqi people do not want continuing occupation and I agree that it will be a priority of the new government to get the Americans out. I don't think this will be requested quickly though.
My reasoning is that 100% of the militant activity by the insurgents is, by definition, being done by those who oppose the elections. The chances are that the same insurgents will oppose the new government.
It's difficult to get accurate current estimates of the number of Iraqi forces and the number of insurgents. The 'official' line is that there are about a hundred thousand of the former and a few thousand of the latter. I would guess that the number of insurgents is far higher than they're saying and that the 'effective' Iraqi forces currently number only about 10,000.
Therefore I don't think that the new government will be able to maintain control without the US forces and I think they'll know this. We're looking at two years minimum.
FWIW, I hope that I'm wrong and you're right.
Regards
Steve M
PS: Come, come Matthew. Surely you'd expect me to have a dig at the Guardian when I get the chance.
Posted on: 22 January 2005 by Mick P
Chaps
This is dead easy.
Once the elections are over, it is up to the Iraqi government to decide whether the US and UK forces stay or not.
Our job was to depose Saddam and democratise their nation and it appears that it will be successfully achieved.
After that we should go.
Naturally we will make a few discrete vieled threats about the security of oil supplies, but other than that, there is little reason to stay.
Regards
Mick
This is dead easy.
Once the elections are over, it is up to the Iraqi government to decide whether the US and UK forces stay or not.
Our job was to depose Saddam and democratise their nation and it appears that it will be successfully achieved.
After that we should go.
Naturally we will make a few discrete vieled threats about the security of oil supplies, but other than that, there is little reason to stay.
Regards
Mick