Is this what Bush, Blair and Co wants for Iraq?

The justification for the war, and the 'unfortunate' outcomes of the war are not linked. The outcomes are a result of the poor execution of the post-war plan, or rather, the lack of a coherent and adequately staffed plan. The justification is a different issue.

And the answer to the question in the subject:

Clearly not.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
So WS, bring back Saddam?

I suppose if I'd paid three trillion dollars for a cheese burger, I'd go ahead and eat the thing. It would be followed by a sick feeling in my stomach at the realization, that maybe I paid too much for it. Saddam is a war crimminal and should be executed. Do the powers that be care about this, it would appear not.

There were many reasons for invading Iraq, but the cheif ones were purely political. It helps during an election to have a compelling issue. Wars do tend towards the compelling.

We can give the people of this war torn nation Democracy, but do they really want it ? I'd like to think so, but I have my doubts.

Hegel and Nietze believed that wars were a necessary part of human culture. A war says they invigorates the populace and cleans out the cultural rot like a cold wind clears the ocean. Also the view of their most ardent admirer, dude named Adolf Hitler...

So what's my call. Bad move by a nose. Apart from that, I leave it to the experts, of which everybody seems to be these days.....


ATB,... Big Brother

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:
Saddam is a war crimminal and should be executed. Do the powers that be care about this, it would appear not.

The way his trial is going, this appears to have some truth, your next statement on the invasion..

quote:

........ but the cheif ones were purely political.

precisely, surely you do not believe them when your political leaders say they are doing this for the better of IRAQ. Come on!

Swap one evil for another......

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
So WS, bring back Saddam?

So what is Bush or Blair going to do about Mugabe?

Oh wait let us not forget Dafur:
..."Blair and Bush need to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding".

Why the double standard?

Cynic

quote:

Why the double standard?

One job at a time.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

Why the double standard?

Cynic

So, bring back Saddam?

I think he is the most capable person to get Iraq in order and keeps Iraqis in line. compare those day & today...

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Ridzwan:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

Why the double standard?

Cynic

So, bring back Saddam?

I think he is the most capable person to get Iraq in order and keeps Iraqis in line. compare those day & today...

cheers

Apa Khabar?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Why the double standard?

One job at a time.

Cheers

Don

Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Cork:
The justification for the war, and the 'unfortunate' outcomes of the war are not linked. The outcomes are a result of the poor execution of the post-war plan, or rather, the lack of a coherent and adequately staffed plan. The justification is a different issue.

Phil

Phil,
Insofar as the same people were responsible for justifying the war, starting it, and not having a workable exit strategy in place at the outset, they're absolutely linked. To say otherwise is to rewrite history after a mere 3 years; in my recollection, the same people who were saying the war was unjustified were also adamant that it would lead to the mess it's in now.

quote:

Phil,
Insofar as the same people were responsible for justifying the war, starting it, and not having a workable exit strategy in place at the outset, they're absolutely linked. To say otherwise is to rewrite history after a mere 3 years; in my recollection, the same people who were saying the war was unjustified were also adamant that it would lead to the mess it's in now.

You can't determine the justification for a war based upon its outcome. The justification, or pretext, is determined prior to the war, the outcome is decided after the war, naturally. A change in outcome doesn't change the justification that went before it.

The fact that people who claimed that the war was unjustified also claimed that it would lead to the current mess doesn't alter things either. The fact that poor planning and execution resulted in the current situation changes the outcome considerably, but can't retrospectively change the justification.

Note that i'm not arguing for or against the war, just merely arguing the causality between the outcome and the justification.

Was the Falklands war justified because it ended satisfactorily? Would it have been less justified if it had dragged on for years? Or does the justification not depend on the outcome - clearly this is the case.

Phil

Just sitting here wondering if justification and outcome should be linked or not, and why this would even matter..

Fact: We were told that Saddam had links with al Qaeda, turns out these two were bitter enemies.

Fact: We were told that Iraq had deadly weapons of mass destruction(possibly nuclear), not true.

Fact: Saddam is a bad bad man, True: along with many other leaders in the world, any plans to invade their country soon ?

Fact: Keep the terrorists busy there, they won't come over here. Brilliant ! Our actions have helped al Qaeda recruit more members than even they would have dreamed possible.

Fact: They hate freedom , we love freedom. Wrong, they hate us, we ( re: BushCo.) love to curtail what freedoms we have.

Fact : Vietnam was much, much worse, True.. But remember,... we didn't start that one !

Regards BB

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:
Just sitting here wondering if justification and outcome should be linked or not, and why this would even matter..

Fact: We were told that Saddam had links with al Qaeda, turns out these two were bitter enemies.

Fact: We were told that Iraq had deadly weapons of mass destruction(possibly nuclear), not true.

Fact: Saddam is a bad bad man, True: along with many other leaders in the world, any plans to invade their country soon ?

Fact: Keep the terrorists busy there, they won't come over here. Brilliant ! Our actions have helped al Qaeda recruit more members than even they would have dreamed possible.

Fact: They hate freedom , we love freedom. Wrong, they hate us, we ( re: BushCo.) love to curtail what freedoms we have.

Fact : Vietnam was much, much worse, True.. But remember,... we didn't start that one !

Regards BB

Big Brother, Excellent!...cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:
Fact: Keep the terrorists busy there, they won't come over here. Brilliant ! Our actions have helped al Qaeda recruit more members than even they would have dreamed possible.

AFAICT the terrorist outrages in the UK have been caused by British Nationals. the 9/11 terrorists where, in the main, Saudi.

So why did they do it? Does Nationality matter?

Dear Tarquin

quote:

Actually, true. Google "Hallabja"

A massacre happened in the town of Hallabja in 1988. Saddam used gas and killed thousands of innocent people. We've known about this for yonks. Recently they discovered some old cannisters of poison gas from 1990. Some were destroyed, some not. This is your threat of global annihilation ? Some rusty gas cannisters ?

quote:

I'm sure that fact that the US has a sizeable military presence in Iraq is not being lost in Iran or Syria.

What the hell are Syria and Iran gonna do when we could be there in a NY minute, if we were in Iraq, or frigging Greenland for that matter !

quote:

AFAICT the terrorist outrages in the UK have been caused by British Nationals. the 9/11 terrorists where, in the main, Saudi.

And your point is ?

quote:

You are saying that North Vietnam started the war on the US???

The Vietnam conflict began in 1945, after the second World War, when Ho Chi Minh tried to drive out the French and their puppet government in Saigon. In 1962 when we sent our first advisors there, the war was a decade and a half old.

Regards , BB

TMP

Then fill me in.

Regards, BB

Mike

Your earlier posts were so cyptic, that I couldn't help but try to connect the dots. I sincerely hope my tone was not self righteous, but if it was, it was not aimed in your direction.

quote:

You said: "fact: keep the terrorists busy there, they won't come over here. Brilliant !"

The clear implication of this is that you feel that an invasion of Iraq would keep terrorists there -

No. I was being sarcastic. Clearly, this is a false conclusion made by many who support the war.

Regards,.... BB

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Briefly...ish...

Mike

Mike,

What happened to your friend from LaLa Land?
I have not heard from him for a while.

Regards,

Haim

quote:

Originally posted by Haim Ronen:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Briefly...ish...

Mike

Mike,

What happened to your friend from LaLa Land?
I have not heard from him for a while.

Regards,

Haim

Haim,

He's been banned off the forum. Someone has complained about his recent thread. You should know who.....well, I think it's good to have someone like him. Hope that he will come back....


cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Ridzwan:
Haim,

He's been banned off the forum. Someone has complained about his recent thread. You should know who.....well, I think it's good to have someone like him. Hope that he will come back....


cheers

Ridzwan,

Thanks. Now, instead of Erik, I have to argue with my wife, and that is a venue where I stand no chance to win.

Regards,

Haim

Erik Scothron got banned, Haim.

He insisted that in his lalaland there was an elephant in the room that had no clothes on.
Could that get someone banned? Only in lalaland. (it rhymes!)

Naim also pulled complete threads, including one that had a few hundred posts.
I think the big thread had a lot of sensible content.

I'm quite disappointed at Naim's actions.

But there is logic to it, isn't there?

Erik started from moral outrage and built up a reasoned case .
There was agreement from people who share some of that moral outrage(that includes me).
There was partisan (and other) opposition.
And there were complaints.

So Naim felt that this type of heated discussion can hurt both Naim's business and its forum. (or so I think)
When Erik indicated he did not want to shut up, he got banned.
Note the forum rules saying "Excessive/obsessive discussion will also be closed or removed."

'Excessive' is quite a rubberband judgement of course. But removing a political thread of a few hundred posts?
I think Naim has displayed a loose and careless approach to censorship.
The fact that it is reflected in the forum rules doesn't justify it.
It's a crude approach and there is a lot of room for improvement.

When 'improvement' means 'extra moderating work', there are practical limitations so,
three suggestions(one has to offer something constructive):

Don't remove longer threads, especially not about politics. It's possible to keep the locking part.

As a variant on bluntly locking, consider deadlines on some threads, (allow people one day and one last post to close the discussion).

Imagine a new 'containment'or 'quarantaine' rule for discussions that heat up.
It's related to the concept of staying 'on topic'. It's less strong as a rule (but enforcement can be tighter):
the discussion is not allowed to transgress the boundaries of the thread.
No stalking or continuing in a new thread, or plugging the theme in other threads.

The containment rule by itself should almost suffice.

I missed this whole Thread entirely! I am not an enthusiast of Blair or GW Bush, and so really did not dig in after the very begining, but there is a vital point in Alexander's last post.

Erik Scothron has disappeared, but his point on the Isreally Defence Forces' killing of Lebanese civilians was and is entirely valid. Anyone who examones it will soon see that the Isreali army prooved useless at disabling those who fired (quite unacceptably) rockets into Isreali towns, but rather too effective at killing civilians who like so may civilians before in Wars had no part in the conflict at all. I posted to this effect at the time, and no one answered my point.

My sympathy remains with the the victims of this mayhem first and foremost, but also with the sole voice expressing a view, uncomfortable to the majority, but never the less defining as real point, not ever satisfactorily countered, that Isreal this year has prooved the equal of any terroristic organisation in killing innoscent bystanders.

Some will say that Erik took this too far, but really I am not sure. All he did was (incorrectly in all probability) get annoyed with one or too who simply attacked him, but studiously avoided meeting his point and arguement.

No one can jutify what Isreal did in South Lebanon in 2006, even if no one can justify what Hyzbolah were doing to Nothern Isrealies either. One is allegedly a civilised state, and the other apparently a terroist organisation, but one stuck to say which is the worse offender in the longer term. In the short term there is no doubt is was Isreal.

Fredrik

AlexanderVH, Mike & Fredrik,

I miss the thread too, and I still do not follow NAIM's logic of pulling it completely off their site. I feel that they should have given us at least a warning that things were heating up too much and perhaps impose a cooling period of a week or so without new postings and with time to re-assess our thoughts, our feelings and our words.

Being myself from the LaLa land (Israel, IDF and so forth), probably puts me in a very different frame of mind and heart than most of you. That, of course, is not a problem, since we are all here to examine facts, express our thoughts and hear each other. I think we all benefitted from this exchange regardless of the size of the common ground we found.

I would like to thank all of you, and the one who is not here, for your open minds and hearts, your time and thoughts you put into this matter of other people in other lands.

Haim

Good night