Third anniversary
Posted by: HR on 18 March 2006
Today is the third anniversary of the war and the occupation of Iraq.
Any thoughts, regrets or just hopes for that sad ordeal?
Haim
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Mick P
Erik
I agree that you are in a minority and Blair has to put the well being of the UK's financial health before that of anything else.
Fortunately for the majority, he did precisely that, as Michael Howard would have done.
Also under the present system, those who have benifitted from Blairs decisions have the freedom to criticise him even though they are a bunch of hypocrits. They slag off Blair whilst flying on cheap holiday flights and driving their 4x4's.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Erik
I agree that you are in a minority and Blair has to put the well being of the UK's financial health before that of anything else.
Fortunately for the majority, he did precisely that, as Michael Howard would have done.
Also under the present system, those who have benifitted from Blairs decisions have the freedom to criticise him even though they are a bunch of hypocrits. They slag off Blair whilst flying on cheap holiday flights and driving their 4x4's.
Regards
Mick
Hi Mick,
Again I agree with much of what you say but as long as our leaders put our so called 'financial interests' above those of the 'others' we are not really helping ourselves as it only causes conflict and increases overall suffering. The pie is only so big. If we get more than our fair share we can kid ourselves that we are really benefiting (and so it seems)and that our leaders are doing a great job (and so it seems)but what goes around comes around and the planet and the exploited have had enough. The law of cause and effect is unbreakable. What we sow we shall surely reap. We cannot cook the books on this in my view but our leaders say we can, when have they ever been right? Empires come and go. Just desserts will be served unless humble pie is eaten first
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Mick P
Erik
The demise of Saddam was done at cost but the cost was worth it.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Erik
The demise of Saddam was done at cost but the cost was worth it.
Regards
Mick
Mick,
Maybe those who have lost fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, loved ones, friends and colleagues are those best able to comment on whether it was all worthwhile. It is perhaps for them and only them to decide. I only know that two wrongs do not make a right. Ever.
All the best,
Erik
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
So law is only a lot of toilet paper.
And some of us still have the boldness to go around sayin we're better.................
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
Originally posted by erik scothron:
Maybe those who have lost fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, loved ones, friends and colleagues are those best able to comment on whether it was all worthwhile. It is perhaps for them and only them to decide. I only know that two wrongs do not make a right. Ever.
All the best,
Erik
Good old Erik!
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Mick P
Yes and some were heartless enough to allow Saddam to torture his people and do nothing about it.
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard- at the cost of nearly 3000 US and over 100 UK lives.
Only a fistfull of dead flies compared to the lot ready to defend "our lifestyle".
What about 200.000 iraqi citizens?
It's a pity they can't smell democracy in the air.
From the pan to the barbeque.
Nice stuff for a new hollywood movie.
And some memorials to take place of Saddams statues.
hehehehehehehehehheheeh
I'm laughing 'cos i'd like to put this pc in the waterclose.
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
compelling need
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
i don't get "slag off"
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by HR
A point that I would like to make:
We cannot ignore the fact that the main interest of the US and the UK in the region for the last 75 years was to keep oil prices as low as possible. To do so they supported systematically regimes that were corrupt, oppresive and UNDEMOCRATIC (including Sadam's). In extreme cases, like in Iran, in 1953, they engineered a coup that toppled a democraticly elected government (PM Mossadeq) in favor of a dictator (the Shah) who would sell us cheap oil and would buy expensive weapon systems from us.
So to say today that we are there doing all the killings and invasions in the name of freedom and democracy is a sheer hypocricy, to put it very mildly.
Maintaining oil prices at 'sane' levels does not have to be done through wars or military presence. It has to be explained to the oil producing nations that from paper clipps to the super-computers that they are buying from us (in other words: everything) will all be indexed to the price of oil. Afterall it is a two way street, and they are much more dependent on us than we are on them.
My family went to Chicago to demonstrate against the war in Iraq yesterday. Out of a metropolitan of 10 million people, only 7000 showed up for the march! I guess most people think that the whole Iraq thing is a business venture and that we are supposed to support the follies of our leaders with our eyes closed and our hearts numb.
How sad.
Haim
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Originally posted by HR:
A point that I would like to make:
We cannot ignore the fact that the main interest of the US and the UK in the region for the last 75 years was to keep oil prices as low as possible. To do so they supported systematically regimes that were corrupt, oppresive and UNDEMOCRATIC (including Sadam's). In extreme cases, like in Iran, in 1953, they engineered a coup that toppled a democraticly elected government (PM Mossadeq) in favor of a dictator (the Shah) who would sell us cheap oil and would buy expensive weapon systems from us.
So to say today that we are there doing all the killings and invasions in the name of freedom and democracy is a sheer hypocricy, to put it very mildly.
Maintaining oil prices at 'sane' levels does not have to be done through wars or military presence. It has to be explained to the oil producing nations that from paper clipps to the super-computers that they are buying from us (in other words: everything) will all be indexed to the price of oil. Afterall it is a two way street, and they are much more dependent on us than we are on them.
My family went to Chicago to demonstrate against the war in Iraq yesterday. Out of a metropolitan of 10 million people, only 7000 showed up for the march! I guess most people think that the whole Iraq thing is a business venture and that we are supposed to support the follies of our leaders with our eyes closed and our hearts numb.
How sad.
Haim
Haim,
Agreed and well said. I am concerned that so much of what is just conscientious objection on moral grounds such as yours is seen as 'unpatriotic', 'un-american' or worse 'aiding the terrorists'.
Regards,
Erik
Posted on: 19 March 2006 by HR
quote:
Originally posted by erik scothron:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HR:
A point that I would like to make:
Haim,
Agreed and well said. I am concerned that so much of what is just conscientious objection on moral grounds such as yours is seen as 'unpatriotic', 'un-american' or worse 'aiding the terrorists'.
Regards,
Erik
Erik,
Yes, but to complete the picture, I should probably seen also as 'anti business'.
Regards,
Haim
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by Roy T
Eric,
I tend to agree with you that Iran's noncompliance with the IAEA and the UN may well be the public reason why a trip into Khuzestan may be slightly nearer fact than fiction.
If Saudi Arabia were to forego trade with the West in exchange for a cease fire with OSBL would this worry the Saudi state? I think not as most of their internal terror problem would be no more, they could withdraw from trade with the West and look forward to meeting the energy needs of India and China for a good few years to come. Russia to could align with China and India and look forward to meeting the energy requirements of the two biggest economic powers over the next twenty or so years – plus they are now a bigger fish in an expanding pool and can also thumb their nose at the West. Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Russia & China with Japan to provide some technological knowledge in exchange for oil may make a good strong economic trading area free from the West's demands for human rights, free trade, Western style rule of law and democracy.
Could refusing to trade oil and gas with the West be considered an hostile act?
If India, China, Russia and Japan were to settle all debts Euros would this be considered a hostile act?
If Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Russia & China with Japan were to settle all debts in Euros what would happen to the 8 trillion US trade debt, the USD, the US and the rest of the world?
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by gusi
Roy,
The world is very interconnected these days. I think China has the biggest investments in the US. If it and the other creditor nations all switched their trade to euros the US dollar would likely devalue, dunno how much though, but this would affect the value their current credit. If the US can't afford the chinese imports where are the Chinese going to sell their exports? I don't think that will happen too quickly. Bush will be gone in a couple of years and his successor might be a bit more realistic.
Makes me wonder how inflation is calculated. If it includes all the cheap Chinese imports it must be almost negative. If it includes housing, about the only non imported good these days, it must surely be around 50%.
Erik,
I totally agree that the government is too myopic about economic growth. Economic growth does not equate into national happiness. As national happiness is not a common measurement it is happily (pun intended) by politicians. Hopefully we won't be in the minority for too long.
Gus
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by Roy T
quote:
If the US can't afford the chinese imports where are the Chinese going to sell their exports?
My thinking is that the quickly growing middle class coupled the movement from the land to the cities will in the case of both China and India be able to take up the slack. Giving people white goods, a sniff at owning property and a small taste freedom but not too much democracy may keep the lid on the pot for quite a few years. China, India, Japan group fuled by OPEC and Russia may well be big enopugh not to care too much about what the USA or the rest of the world think - Isolationalisam but on a big scale.
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by Van the man
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps
You sit here like a bunch of old women, whinging about the war etc.
If the invasion had not taken place, Saddam would still be in power and the atrocities which he would have committed would have been a damn sight worse than whats happened because of the war.
The people out there have now a decent chance of a democratic government and I just hope they do not waste their freedom by becoming a bunch of whinging windbags like some of you lot.
On the question of oil......what a load of bloody hypocrites you are. Security of oil is importance to the economy, your childrens future etc. You would all be moaning ( my God how you would moan )if petrol was rationed. Just remember that when you jump in a car or take a flight.
so accept the 1st lesson in life that you can rarely have your cake and eat it.
Regards
Mick
Mick, this war was made out to be about helping the people of iraq, and getting shut of sadam for all the terrible things he has done to the iraq people.
Why are we not going into other countries where there are leaders with no scruples?
We go on about the loss of life under sadam, how many women, men and children have been killed in the quest for peace and freedom?
I would say that by going in things have been made worse, and there is no sign of things improving.
Iraq is another northern ireland imo.
Just a final question Mick, would you sacrifice a son or daughter if they were in the army ?
In a war where you know your enemy there can be no issues as far as I am concerned.
In a war such as iraq I think it to be a different kettle of fish altogether.
If our leaders were honest it would help, they do not give a toss about the people of iraq, they have proved this with the carpet bombing of innocent people in the quest for oil, all imo ofcourse.
Please dont accuse people of whinging or being hypocrites where lives are concerened.
Regards.
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by manicatel
Getting rid of saddam, most people would agree with. As far as it being worth the price, my question is "could it have been done more cost effectively?" I am no military/political tactician, but would it not have been possible to either de-stabilise his regime from within, or to decapitate the top 100 or so of the regime? It may have been an option, & just may have saved lives, as well as some western govts reputations.I find it hard to see a happy ending to the Iraqi situation until an alternative to oil is in majority use.
matt.
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by gusi
Roy,
You have a point there but the middle classes in India and China are not that wealthy. Plus you'd need export dollars to import the resources. China faces huge internal problems in the distribution of wealth between cities and rural areas. The communist revolution started with rural peasants, I am sure the party hasn't forgotten.
I just don't think that China, India, Japan et al hate the US and Europe that much that they would create a rival block. Most are newly rich and wouldn't risk their wealth lightly. Russia is hardly a political stable country and who knows that they won't be tempted to turn of the gas tap for political reasons.
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by Mick P
Mr Van the Man
The Iraq invasion was done to topple Saddam who refused point blank to allow UN investigators to check for WMD. The fact that he never had them is incidential, he was a dictator who played games with the UN and he had to go.
A second point to remember is that both Bush and Blair were re elected after the invasion . Both successfully defended their record, so the electorates have endorsed their actions.
Finally other dictators must absolutely love people like you because you make it more difficult for our governments to depose them.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 20 March 2006 by HR
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Mr Van the Man
Finally other dictators must absolutely love people like you because you make it more difficult for our governments to depose them.
Regards
Mick
Mr. Parry,
First a correction: Just before the invasion Hans Blix was given access to any spot he desired to inspect in Iraq, including the presidential palaces. There were two problems: First, the the UK and the USA had no real inteligence to give him, and where-ever he was pointed to he could not find any WMD, though he found some other violations that he reported. Second, he was never given the full time of his comission (three months) to maccomplish what he was sent to do. The weather was perfect for an invasion, the forces where in place so he was pulled out. If you are interested, Mick, you can read a book that Hans Blix wrote about the subject.
The following dictators, royalties and fake presidents:
Ahmad al-Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait
King Abdulah of Saudia Arabia
King Abdallah of Jordan
President Mubarek of Eygpt
General Musharraf of Pakistan
love very much people like you, Mick, people who are interested only in cheap oil and in stratigic alliances in the war against 'Evil' and for "Good, Freedom & Democracy" and let those dictators opress their own people in their own countries where freedom and democracy of course do not exist.
If it is sounding a little confusing it is because using hollow slogans or plugging dumm formulas to try to seperate the good guys from the bad never work.
Best regards fron a good/bad guy,
Haim
Posted on: 21 March 2006 by Beano
Perhaps peoples perception of WMD is Missile silos, and sheds full of explosives.
Tarquin is quite right with his suitcase analogy.
Posted on: 21 March 2006 by Van the man
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Mr Van the Man
The Iraq invasion was done to topple Saddam who refused point blank to allow UN investigators to check for WMD. The fact that he never had them is incidential, he was a dictator who played games with the UN and he had to go.
A second point to remember is that both Bush and Blair were re elected after the invasion . Both successfully defended their record, so the electorates have endorsed their actions.
Finally other dictators must absolutely love people like you because you make it more difficult for our governments to depose them.
Regards
Mick
" A second point to remember is that both Bush and Blair were re elected after the invasion . Both successfully defended their record, so the electorates have endorsed their actions."
The electorate have " endorsed " their actions?
Were you asked mick? was I asked? No.
I did not endorse their actions, the fact they were re elected means jack shit, it does not qualify the argument that the war was just, or is just.
"Finally other dictators must absolutely love people like you because you make it more difficult for our governments to depose them."
Hogwash mick, with all respect
Our governments have deposed sadam but for what mick? the fact that sadam killed thousands of people does not justify what we are doing, we are no better than sadam imo, when I say " we " I mean bush and blair.
As for asking the parents of service people who have been killed out there if it was worth it, the question should be are bush and blair forgiven for getting us into this mess, not the british people or american people mick, they did not endorse the war, and anyway by all rights the only ones who can do the forgiving are the dead of this sorry war.
Regards.
Posted on: 21 March 2006 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
quote:
Yes and some were heartless enough to allow Saddam to torture his people and do nothing about it.
Mick,
I hope you're not having a go at the saintly Margaret Thatcher here.
Richard
Posted on: 21 March 2006 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
Originally posted by HR:
the war against 'Evil' and for "Good, Freedom & Democracy"
And this makes me think about a far in time "Got mit uns".
Cheers
Gianluigi
