Mandela statue joins ranks of Britain's heroes

[DBA_bloke]

The fact that NATO troops are not seeking to crush the people of Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that maybe they have better intentions.

Iraq: Worthless "intel" was used to justify the war. It's now a shambles. We are intending to pull out. Then (you read it here first) a period of sitting back as Iraq descends into total meltdown... and then the clever bit: "We've just had Kuwait on the blower. Iraq troops at the border. Looks a bit worrying. We have to step in." Next and final step - we flatten Iraq and take ownership "for the good of all". Bingo! Cheap oil! Lovely!

That the current state of affairs in Iraq seems counterproductive for a Western "plot" is, it seems, simply due to the US's traditional inability to understand that countries don't like invasion or puppet regimes (and Iraq's had more than its fair share of those), and that instability is guaranteed in such situations. So, either the US and the UK have badly underestimated the result of taking the reigns, or they suspected it all along, knowing that another pile of old cobblers fed to the dumb masses will be enough to warrant the final, lucrative step. Remember, the colossal dollar cost of the war and post-war "peace keeping" is buttons compared to what we'll get from the oil sales.

In sum: we NEVER, EVER intended anything different than getting our greedy mitts on the only asset Iraq has. Not long now, I suggest, before we get our way.

[snaw]

Snaw,

I am simply arguing that the activities of the US and UK govt have a legitimate integrity that countries such as Iraq and Cuba do not. I am not saying that everything that they do is legitimate, I am saying that often the decisions they make are for the good.

It is all very well talking about dealing with dodgy governments but often the alternatives to the types of dealings you do not like or approve of are the best options available. After all if we went to war with every so called "dodgy country" you and your liberal friends would be the first to scream in horror.

You reckon? Legitimate integrity eh. The list of things that can't be possibly justified as either legitimate, or to have any integrity carried out by the US in the last 10 years is so long that I really wouldn't know where to start, let alone go back much further. Read some of the recent history of Latin America or of Iraq, or of the foundation of Al Queda and then talk to me about legitimate integrity.

[sasguru]

You reckon? Legitimate integrity eh. The list of things that can't be possibly justified as either legitimate, or to have any integrity carried out by the US in the last 10 years is so long that I really wouldn't know where to start, let alone go back much further. Read some of the recent history of Latin America or of Iraq, or of the foundation of Al Queda and then talk to me about legitimate integrity.

I think what DA is saying is that ultimately we can get rid of our leaders and that they were elected, hence democratic integrity. However, how many US voters really know what the government has done in their name (and is still doing)? Politicians just get over "oversight" by being secretive.
Ultimately I believe democracies are the best form of govt. but to claim that they are always morally just in their actions is naive at best.

[DodgyAgent]

I think what DA is saying is that ultimately we can get rid of our leaders and that they were elected, hence democratic integrity. However, how many US voters really know what the government has done in their name (and is still doing)? Politicians just get over "oversight" by being secretive.
Ultimately I believe democracies are the best form of govt. but to claim that they are always morally just in their actions is naive at best.

Quite