Lawrence
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 18, 2005, 20:09
|
|
I don't think anyone would. But then again I just read not-to-long-ago the Tories are leading in the polls now that Cameron got in. Who do you think is the blame?
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 18, 2005, 20:10
|
|
Are the Lambs still screaming?
|
Sootickle
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 18, 2005, 22:19
|
|
The electorate are to blame. We voted for tax cuts under the tories and unless we are prepared to pay more in taxes we will not get the services we need. Labour no that raising taxes is a vote loser even if they were left enough to do that.
|
Sootickle
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 18, 2005, 22:20
|
|
Sorry you lost me on that oen?
|
Drood
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 19, 2005, 11:28
|
Does anyone have any independent figures outlining approximate numbers of civilian casualties directly attributed to Saddam Hussein over the last three years before the war began? (2000-2003).
I'd be interested to see if it tops 30,000...
Once those figures are in place it will be much easier to determine the biggest threat to the livelyhood of the Iraqi people.
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 19, 2005, 16:02
|
I think you said it better than I ever could.
All I'm saying is I'm sick of people pointing at Saddam when anyone criticizes this stupid war in the first place. OK, so Saddam is bad. That's supposed to be worth killing more Iraqis over... Of course we wouldn't get into this discussion if this coup was bloodless. The point is if we really needed to stop Saddam we could've done a better job. Of course that raises the question of if we really could've done better, I know that...
|
dee
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Dec 19, 2005, 16:13
|
|
I dont think they invaded cos of saddam, I reckon they had other motives such as oil. Bush doesnt give a fuck about the iraq people, he certainly dont give a fuck about other regimes.......
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: Peace In Our Time
Jan 02, 2006, 19:31
|
Absolutely. If the pursuit of democratizing countries which are currently dictatorships was really the motive why is there no 'democratic' coalition army going into the totalitarian regimes of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Because they either have leaders willing to do business with the West, so our governments turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses, or they have no significant resources which we are interested in, or they are too militarily threatening to invade in the first place. Iraq was about oil.
However, if we ignore what seems to me the blindingly obvious motivation for the invasion of Iraq and give the coalition the massively deluded benefit of the doubt and assume the invasion was just about toppling Saddam Hussein and liberating the Iraqi people from oppression; the end STILL doesn't justify the means. The invasion was shockingly badly planned, and there was no plan once Saddam was toppled and no plan for withdrawing troops. The lack of military and civilian plans and strategies at all stages of this occupation has lead to unnecessary loss of life on both sides. For example, there were no plans to close Iraq's borders after Saddam was toppled. This alone has been disasterous madness. There seemed to be little or no understanding of the ethnic divisions within Iraq either. Bush and Blair have been winging it all the way. They blundered into Iraq with a gung-ho attitude (the religious sons-of-bitches probably believing that God would take care of the rest; either that or they just didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people) which has left the Iraqi people enormously more vulnerable than needed to be the case.
|
TheBear
|
There is no oil left.
Jan 14, 2006, 21:25
|
I sometimes wonder if the reason why Bush and Blair went into Iraq was because the amount of global oil reserves are really far less than anyone will let on. Does anyone on here know who quantifies and peer reviews the claims of the oil companies and oil producing nations? Is it credible that they would be realistic about their reserves?
If the situation is far worse than anyone thinks then B & B would have no choice than to annexe the Iraqi oil reserves before the Chinese decide they want it.
|
jshell
|
Re: There is no oil left.
Jan 17, 2006, 18:10
|
|
TB, the reserves are quoted correctly, as the company with a name similar to mine above found to their cost last year. They got publicly f@cked for over-estimating reserves.
|
