Anyone interested in US politics?

[snaw]

There was also an interesting R4 prog about the Faluja business... apparently the Marine Commander told Dubya that if he waited 6 weeks or so, they'd have the scumbags responsible for killing the 4 contractors.

Dubya, in his inimitable way, told them to go in immediately.

Marine commander informed the brain dead one that this would be a disaster.

Reply was "get on with it"...

The rest, as they say, is history...

And they still haven't got the scumbags responsible.

Dubya really is a piece of work.

Even his father is ashamed of him.

A mate of mine was there for the first one (When the marines opened fire on the protesting crowd, before the big army incursion) - he's a freelance photographer (Was there with his journalist - only ones at the scene).

He's not a lefty or anything like that that, but he says he would have quite happily gone in front of a war crimes commission to testify against the US marines, who basically opened fire on a peaceful protest that didn't have any hints of violence.

His memorable quote was it's not nice to see someone's brains blown out and land a few yards from your feet.

[Lucy]

Nice avoidance tactics with Iraq there, at least you didn't mention WMD or try to link Iraq to 11/9 when even the Saudis were more involved. Perhaps you knew the middle east plan was long in the making before 11/9 however, it didn't quite work out the way they expected and has only served to help push the price higher. Ah the UN, matters as a justification, but doesn't matter if the war isn't sanctioned in a resolution? Can't have it both ways

In Summary: The repulicans can't run the economy or a war.

Iraq had used WMD several times in the past and threatened to use them again and cheered when 9/11 happened. The Saddam regime was a murderous thugocracy. The moral basis for overthrowing Saddam was overwhelming - the opportunity, means and justification existed. UN sanctioning is not required for a country to act in self-defence, nor did the UN sanction the overthrow of the Taliban, remember? There was no legitimacy to the Iraq regime whatsoever.

I agree the planning after the overthrow was poor and could have been undertaken with far better strategic commitment to the future of the country.

However, what would you prefer Baathist Hussein allied with Syria continuing to support terrorism against Israel and it's anti-Western crusade, a Wahabbist Iraq, allied with Saudi Arabia, with a stranglehold on most of the world's oil supply, or an Islamist Iraq, allied with Iran, which is what will happen if the limp wristed liberal democrat cut-and-run brigade get their way. Don't forget that over two-thirds of Iraq is now in relative peace, with the Kurds enjoying relief from oppression and genecidal attack for the first time in decades, as are the Shi'a in the south.

It's all to easy and trendy to be anti-war, but the world could not let Saddam rebuild his WMD supplies. Note also that late last year, Israel destroyed Syria's nuclear facilities kindly sold to them by the North Koreans, or would you have preferred that Saddam had got such facilities?

You gotta stop reading the Independent, pussycat.

[Lucy]

You are unaware, then, Lucy, of the total disinterest in terrorism prior to 9/11 displayed by the newly installed god botherers in the White House?

For a whole nine months?

[snaw]

Iraq had used WMD several times in the past and threatened to use them again and cheered when 9/11 happened. The Saddam regime was a murderous thugocracy. The moral basis for overthrowing Saddam was overwhelming - the opportunity, means and justification existed. UN sanctioning is not required for a country to act in self-defence, nor did the UN sanction the overthrow of the Taliban, remember? There was no legitimacy to the Iraq regime whatsoever.

I agree the planning after the overthrow was poor and could have been undertaken with far better strategic commitment to the future of the country.

However, what would you prefer Baathist Hussein allied with Syria continuing to support terrorism against Israel and it's anti-Western crusade, a Wahabbist Iraq, allied with Saudi Arabia, with a stranglehold on most of the world's oil supply, or an Islamist Iraq, allied with Iran, which is what will happen if the limp wristed liberal democrat cut-and-run brigade get their way. Don't forget that over two-thirds of Iraq is now in relative peace, with the Kurds enjoying relief from oppression and genecidal attack for the first time in decades, as are the Shi'a in the south.

It's all to easy and trendy to be anti-war, but the world could not let Saddam rebuild his WMD supplies. Note also that late last year, Israel destroyed Syria's nuclear facilities kindly sold to them by the North Koreans, or would you have preferred that Saddam had got such facilities?

You gotta stop reading the Independent, pussycat.

FFS, where even the proponents of this view now accept they were wrong (And plenty at the time suspected it) and you're still trying to promote it.

Give us a feckin break, one of the worst conceived, badly planned, morally flawed, cluster f cuks in modern history and you're trynig to say ti was a good thing.

And BTW if we're gonna talk genocide, at least ask questions like who were our allies when Sadam was dropping gas on the kurds, or on a far larger scale the Iranian soldiers?

[oracleslave]

Even his father is ashamed of him.

Quite!

Posted this before but it still applies

Bush Snr: Son your making the same mistake in Iraq as I did with your mother
Dubya: What's that?
Bush Snr: Not pulling out soon enough.

[Bagpuss]

Iraq had used WMD several times in the past and threatened to use them again and cheered when 9/11 happened. The Saddam regime was a murderous thugocracy. The moral basis for overthrowing Saddam was overwhelming - the opportunity, means and justification existed. UN sanctioning is not required for a country to act in self-defence, nor did the UN sanction the overthrow of the Taliban, remember? There was no legitimacy to the Iraq regime whatsoever.

.

The WMD used in the past were supplied amongst others by the US, and certainly not condemned at the time, in fact they continued to supply. So the US were partially culpable, and certainly not in a position to judge retrospectively.


Care to explain the above (in bold)?

Independent? not often, but it's certainly better informed than your rapture sites.

[oracleslave]

rapture sites.

Was gutted when banned from there before I could really feel the rapture.

[Platypus]

Wars? There is no oil in Afganistan, and the murderous Taliban were removed.

If the Taliban have been removed, what's all the fighting about then?

They may have been removed from government, but that's all.

This, and your post about WMD in Iraq and the moral case for removing Saddam really makes me wonder where DO you get your news/views?

[Lucy]

The WMD used in the past were supplied amongst others by the US, and certainly not condemned at the time, in fact they continued to supply. So the US were culpable, and certainly not in a position to judge retrospectively.


Care to explain the above (in bold)?

Independent? certainly better than rapture sites.

They were not supplied by the US, they were supplied by China, Egypt, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg and Niger. France helped it build it's nuclear reactor in the 1970s. Regardless of who supplied such equipment, does that mean it's okay to sit back and not remedy this, unlike Iraq and China, virtually all of the countries assisting it, all have different governments than they did in the 1980s. There are fifteen recorded incidents of chemical weapon attacks by Iraq, but I guess that is okay to say that the Hussein regime should sit behind the shield of national sovereignty.

The US senate voted to cut off US assistance to Iraq after the Halabja poison gas attack.

Yes it was wrong for the US to align itself with Iraq again Iran but does that mean that after three changes in US administration that it can't be allowed to change a policy? Or do you just criticise the US for being big bad America?

A principle of internation law is that a country doesn't require UN sanction to act in self-defence. (Iraq was a threat to the West and it's allies, for the reasons I have explained above)

There is little point in going to rapture sites when I'm not a christian...

So which Iraq do you prefer Bagpuss? You haven't answered that question. Choosing not to choose is a choice.

[Lucy]

If the Taliban have been removed, what's all the fighting about then?

They may have been removed from government, but that's all.

This, and your post about WMD in Iraq and the moral case for removing Saddam really makes me wonder where DO you get your news/views?

There are still Taliban fighting, that is why there are troops there, they have been removed from Kabul, would you rather withdraw and let them win?

Iraq did have WMDs, this was widely reported, they used them against their own people. The chemical and biological weapons programmes is incontravertable, the failure to find any afterwards, is a mystery, it was maybe due to destruction, or they may have been sold. The simple point is he didn't let international inspectors in to verify the destruction, if he had of done so one of the core reasons for invasion would have evaporated. Given his past record, it's hardly suprising that much of the world didn't believe him. Who raced in to fight for Iraq?