Blair facing revolt over Iraq

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Boddington's
You were quite happy being the pedant when I said I am teetotal.

I wonder how many times Bod has looked at the photos of Giancarlo, drinking a pint, and killing a kitten

[Solly]

Originally posted by paiktis22


I wonder how many times Bod has looked at the photos of Giancarlo, drinking a pint, and killing a kitten

Try zero.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Makeo
CT: Maybe you also think WWII was all the Allies fault for being so mean in the Versailles Treaty...

That Hitler came to power was partly the allies`fault...

But there´s no comparison here. Hitler declared war on the United States; Saddam didn´t. Kuwait was not a US ally. The popular opinion in Kuwait itself was much more pro-Iraq than the US media ever admitted.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Some questions:

For those wanting to attack Iraq...

1) If the US/West is going to inspect Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't Iraq also have the right to inspect all of the United States' and other coutnries' weapons?

2) Will bombing Iraq REALLY counter terrorism? How does removing weapons of mass destruction stop the primitive hijacking of a vehicle in order for it to be flown into a symbolic building or two?

3) Why the delay since September 11th? Are our (the West's) military forces so ineffective that they can only attack one small third-world nation at a time?

For those criticising the plan to attack Iraq...

4) Why do we see the same posters campaigning against Bush/US no matter what the issue at hand is? Afghanistan, Iraq, Kyoto treaty - we get the usual anti-American hordes led by Saint Marcus, Paiktis et al. It strikes me that your positions aren't very well thought - you simply look to see what the US is going to do next, and immediately form an opinion against it merely because of the US. Have your own opinions, rather than being anti-Bush

Thank you.

Thoughtful post.

Ad 4) I deserve a mention among the anti-American hordes! Seriously: I never mentioned Kyoto, because I think the US have the right not to sign a treaty, even if it´s a bad decision. As to the rest: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran: They hang together. This is part of a strategic mop-up: The US are more or less openly taking over the planet, and I am totally against that. So those are different battles of one campaign, and I am cheering for the US to loose the entire campaign (and as many individual battles as possible). This is logical, if you think about it.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Thoughtful post.

Ad 4) I deserve a mention among the anti-American hordes! Seriously: I never mentioned Kyoto, because I think the US have the right not to sign a treaty, even if it´s a bad decision. As to the rest: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran: They hang together. This is part of a strategic mop-up: The US are more or less openly taking over the planet, and I am totally against that. So those are different battles of one campaign, and I am cheering for the US to loose the entire campaign (and as many individual battles as possible). This is logical, if you think about it.

Your conclusion is wrong and thus by wanting the US to lose, you're supporting the terrorists.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


That Hitler came to power was partly the allies`fault...

But there´s no comparison here. Hitler declared war on the United States; Saddam didn´t. Kuwait was not a US ally. The popular opinion in Kuwait itself was much more pro-Iraq than the US media ever admitted.

Me thinks that is a load of crap. The first things the Iraqi soldiers did was loot the cars and jewelry. Blast a few chunks out of buildings. And million of god damn pictures of Saddam...


The Kuwaiti's were very happy to see us after 9 months of Iraq.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Kyle
Your conclusion is wrong.

Great argument.

[Comrade Tribune]

FG: Did you know the Kuwaiti parliament had, years before, decided they want to unite with Iraq?

Of course it didn´t matter what the parliament wanted, because the Emir sent them home and ruled without a parliament.

If the US are so hot about liiiiiberty, why don´t they liberate Kuwait for a change?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
FG: Did you know the Kuwaiti parliament had, years before,
decided they want to unite with Iraq?

:

Oh you lie through teeth. Unless you think you can slip that one by without providing some kind of serouis link....because I think that is a smelly pile of Bulls---.

Of course it didn´t matter what the parliament wanted, because the Emir sent them home and ruled without a parliament.

? again...back this up. (Of course you are probably just making it up as you go along)

If the US are so hot about liiiiiberty, why don´t they liberate Kuwait for a change?

uhh..nobody denies we do things in the name of liberty, with other motives in mind. Our true intentions are irrelevant, what really matters is we freed the peoples of Kuwait and Afghanistan.

Stop acting like its some kind of moral-hazard to have other motives. You think we go around spilling our blood for free?

[Rogan Josh]

I am actually much happier about returning to Iraq to remove Saddam now, than I was about the original invasion way back in the early nineties.

The original invasion was extremely dubious imho. Saddam was a dictator who at least made some effort to at least appear democratically elected, who had been supported by the west for years and given money to build up his army to combat Iran. Then he invades Kuwait, an unashamedly undemocratic nation with huge oil-derived wealth, in order to gain some of the disputed border oil fields and access to the sea.

Let's be honest here. It was never about democracy, or about terrorism, or about being scared that Iraq would attack the west. It was about oil. America and Europe were worried about losing control over the Kuwaiti oil fields, and the very rick Kuwaiti royal family and their very rich supporters were able to apply pressure to have something done about it.

I think this entire episode created lots of problems. First of all, by attacking Iraq we instantly made Saddam the enemy of the west, giving us a reason to be genuinely concerned about him. He is now motivated to fund terrorist groups against us. Secondly, the presence of US and European troops on 'holy ground' is what triggered this whole Al quaida problem, and God knows what a diaster that has been.

But, having said that, the problem is there now, and something should be done about it. Saddam is now an ememy of the west and should be removed entirely. But we need to do it right this time! Like one of the previous posters said earlier, we have to occupy Iraq for a long time and genuinely lessen the poverty and misery of the Iraqi civilians to gain their support. We have to create a stable democratic and pluralist system there, spending whatever money is necessary to improve the Iraqi infrastructure to make this work. this will take a long time and lots of money, but I think it is worth it.

Indeed, this is a real opportunity. Imagine having a stable pro-western but arab democracy in the area. It would demonstrate to the other ME arab nations that democracy and capitalism isn't just for the west. That they too can benefit from it, and it is not an attempt to merely subvert the arab countries but to improve their lot.

I woudl also say that something has to be done about the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well though. Why are we so friendly to such autocratic, despotic regimes?

[James Adams]

British Media's opinion (unoffical)

IRAQ: to end to change regime, but do not want to have Brits killed.

My opinion (offical): We need to help the USA to do what should have been done in the GULF WAR !

[Makeo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


That Hitler came to power was partly the allies`fault...

But there´s no comparison here. Hitler declared war on the United States; Saddam didn´t. Kuwait was not a US ally. The popular opinion in Kuwait itself was much more pro-Iraq than the US media ever admitted.

Fair enough. Just want to add that when a thug commits a crime, it is his fault. Like when you misbehave and your mommy beats your little tushy. Don't tell me that the misbehavior is a result of the beating. It's the other way around. Similarly, Hitler was an evil man and his regime in Germany was an evil regime. Not our fault.

[Makeo]

The reason for the Gulf War was protection of Saudi oil fields. The war was also morally justified.

Remember: 2 by 2 matrix. Self-interest and moral justification on orthoganal axes.

Everybody clear?

[SlowwHand]

Re: Blair facing revolt over Iraq

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1861000/1861971.stm

Seems likely that not even Britain is going to aid the US in a strike against Iraq.

So much for "we'll rally the world". Nobody is listening, and nobody wants to help the US. Sure, I doubt the US needs the help, but it does show how "pro-American" the rest of the world is. In the end, it will only hurt the US when it finds itself alone and isolated without any allies to call on. Great going Shrubya!

[Chris 62]

We are going to do whatever we want, and you Euro-punks don't have a say, so choke on it.