kaz1
et tu
End this racist thread immediately.
Blair "i'll do it again" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter twistedrebel
- Start date
Failure_123
Member
I would do it again and again and again. Only ignorant adolescent like some of you here, condemn him.
lol at the flaming of violentdelights. Neither Sultun or Omar is actually arguing with her, they're both just launching a tirade of ad-homs and laughing at home. Wankers.
I agree with violentdelights that the stance of western society in that it's not okay to kill kurds, shias and anyone in Iraq in general but completely fine for Israel to do whatever it wants to in enlarging the lebensraum of the Jewish people.
Anyway I personally disagree with entire basis of founding a state purely delineated on the grounds of religion. Israel is also constitutionally a theocracy (putting it in the same league as another of our favourite states, Iran) but arguably more democratic than most other middle east nations. For context though most of Israel's Jewish citizens are descendants of individuals who were used to a certain degree of democracy in pre-WW2 Europe.
Israel is going to disappear in 30 years or so anyway. 20% of the Israeli population (not including Palestine.) are Arab Muslims and they have far higher birth rates than the Jewish people of Israel. Demographers project that the Muslims will outnumber the Jews in Israel within 30 years so as long as Israel remains a democracy it can only be notionally Jewish but functionally Arab.
In theory, liberation of oppressed people is a reasonable excuse to go to war but none of us here are so naive as to think that the Americans went to war in Iraq to liberate the Kurds and Shias whom they cared for so deeply (that they allowed millions of them to be murdered systematically over the preceding 25 years.) It was a blatant resource grab for Dick Cheney and the rest of the Republican party's business allies (Halliburton, Honeywell, the various defense contractors etc.) Liberation, just like WMD's, is a bullshit excuse that bush tried to fool us with o.o
If they were truly interested in liberation, I suggest they arrange for an invasion of North Korea asap.
I agree with violentdelights that the stance of western society in that it's not okay to kill kurds, shias and anyone in Iraq in general but completely fine for Israel to do whatever it wants to in enlarging the lebensraum of the Jewish people.
Anyway I personally disagree with entire basis of founding a state purely delineated on the grounds of religion. Israel is also constitutionally a theocracy (putting it in the same league as another of our favourite states, Iran) but arguably more democratic than most other middle east nations. For context though most of Israel's Jewish citizens are descendants of individuals who were used to a certain degree of democracy in pre-WW2 Europe.
Israel is going to disappear in 30 years or so anyway. 20% of the Israeli population (not including Palestine.) are Arab Muslims and they have far higher birth rates than the Jewish people of Israel. Demographers project that the Muslims will outnumber the Jews in Israel within 30 years so as long as Israel remains a democracy it can only be notionally Jewish but functionally Arab.
In theory, liberation of oppressed people is a reasonable excuse to go to war but none of us here are so naive as to think that the Americans went to war in Iraq to liberate the Kurds and Shias whom they cared for so deeply (that they allowed millions of them to be murdered systematically over the preceding 25 years.) It was a blatant resource grab for Dick Cheney and the rest of the Republican party's business allies (Halliburton, Honeywell, the various defense contractors etc.) Liberation, just like WMD's, is a bullshit excuse that bush tried to fool us with o.o
If they were truly interested in liberation, I suggest they arrange for an invasion of North Korea asap.
Slidey
But pieces of what?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 6,600
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
The guy never even brought up two thirds of those topics you ignorant fool. It's not even worth bothering with you, you're a bigot content to turn this into an Israel-bashing thread when it has nothing to do with Israel.
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
Yeah it was completely unreasonable for intelligence agencies to suspect that a regime that has used chemical weapons on its people in the past has WMDs.
Sultun
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 90
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Haha? Are you joking? What resources have America 'grabbed'? If you actually extraced your information fom reality (rather than your deluded 'B Arts complex') you would be familiar with the following.
If the intervention in Iraq was indeed a war for oil, some of that war's more positive consequences were to be seen in Baghdad last week. The country's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, presided over an auction at which development rights for seven major oil fields were awarded in competitive bidding among several international consortiums.
Three features of the outcome were worthy of note. The auction was to award service contracts rather than the production sharing agreements that the major corporations prefer.
The prices were set at less than half the $US4 ($4.50) per barrel that the bidders originally proposed. And corporations from the US were generally not the winners in an auction in which consortiums identified with Malaysia, Russia and even Angola did best. (ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum have, in previous negotiations, been awarded contacts in other Iraqi oilfields.)
Thus, the vulgar and hysterical part of the war-for-oil interpretation has been discredited: Iraq retains its autonomy, the share awarded to outsiders in development is far from exorbitant and there is no real correlation between US interests and the outcome. Except that America does have a genuine interest in the success of this endeavour as it unfolds.
The main contract winners were:
Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom
Malaysia's Petronas
Royal Dutch Shell
Norway's Statoil
China's National Petroleum Corp.
Angola's Sonangol.
Such paranoid simpletons as yourself are seemingly bound to such constipated phrases as 'OILZZ' and 'BUSH WANTZ OILZ'. Please, boy, stay out of the grown up conversations.
Fish Tank
That guy
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 279
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2010
This.
I.refuse.a.name
Member
The problem with Blair's statement isn't so much eradicating a dictatorial leader, it's doing so under false pretences.
Documents were leaked that there wasn't reasonable suspicion over Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they really existed, I cannot fathom why at least one weapon wasn't found whilst armies were there for so long with all their available resources.
And before you go on about B Arts complex, I researched this pretty thoroughly and saw documentaries on this stuff. Besides, having an Arts degree can be useful to this sort of discussion and allows you divulge in a range of disciplines of thought.
It's one thing to want to eradicate Saddam Hussein which arguably many Iraqis wanted, but when they discovered their situations were even more dire without him, it's not like there's much to cheer about. A lot of infrastructure was destroyed in a war that was not even approved by the UN, which would surely be more informed to make appropriate decisions than a country which has its own nuclear weapons (not just "reasonable suspicion" but definitively) which it isn't planning to do anything about before it challenges and wages war in another. It's disappointing because there was no consistent core reason given why war was raged - sometimes WMD, sometimes oil, sometimes Iraqi sustainability, back to oil which again suggests there wasn't a strong basis for such a war.
Further, alot of the infrastructure that was destroyed was then rebuilt with US Funds on the condition that it was spent on US workers rebuilding such infrastructure- again I can't fathom how this is good for Iraq. I watched on TV whilst a guy had his car crushed by a US Army officer because they saw him stealing food from US supplies whilst many others got away with it, as "this is what you get" for messing with us, then being told that he was a taxi driver such that nor does he have enough supplies to prevent him from looting it in his desperation, but he now has no capacity to earn it legitimately for himslef and his family to survive.
Sure Iraq gets to keep some oil revenue now, but it's still less than it would've been otherwise. The problem lies further, that once you wage a war, which many condemned, it is now necessary to stay for quite a while to re-establish stability and security. Plus, if US was not in it at all for the oil or other ulterior motive, why didn't they help when the Hutus and Tootsies were raging civil war in Africa where there could've been no other reason but humanitarian concern for involvement? I can't help but being cynical about it being a way to gain support for Bush because people can be quite pumped about Wars that are "won".
Eliminating Saddam was something many would've wanted, but that is not the reason that was given and that alone is not enough to justify the disempowered state Iraq was left in. Blair helped perpetrated this illegitimately so it's surprising he has no regrets.
Seriously, this is becoming more of a thread of unjustified insults than a response to the thread title itself.
Documents were leaked that there wasn't reasonable suspicion over Weapons of Mass Destruction. If they really existed, I cannot fathom why at least one weapon wasn't found whilst armies were there for so long with all their available resources.
And before you go on about B Arts complex, I researched this pretty thoroughly and saw documentaries on this stuff. Besides, having an Arts degree can be useful to this sort of discussion and allows you divulge in a range of disciplines of thought.
It's one thing to want to eradicate Saddam Hussein which arguably many Iraqis wanted, but when they discovered their situations were even more dire without him, it's not like there's much to cheer about. A lot of infrastructure was destroyed in a war that was not even approved by the UN, which would surely be more informed to make appropriate decisions than a country which has its own nuclear weapons (not just "reasonable suspicion" but definitively) which it isn't planning to do anything about before it challenges and wages war in another. It's disappointing because there was no consistent core reason given why war was raged - sometimes WMD, sometimes oil, sometimes Iraqi sustainability, back to oil which again suggests there wasn't a strong basis for such a war.
Further, alot of the infrastructure that was destroyed was then rebuilt with US Funds on the condition that it was spent on US workers rebuilding such infrastructure- again I can't fathom how this is good for Iraq. I watched on TV whilst a guy had his car crushed by a US Army officer because they saw him stealing food from US supplies whilst many others got away with it, as "this is what you get" for messing with us, then being told that he was a taxi driver such that nor does he have enough supplies to prevent him from looting it in his desperation, but he now has no capacity to earn it legitimately for himslef and his family to survive.
Sure Iraq gets to keep some oil revenue now, but it's still less than it would've been otherwise. The problem lies further, that once you wage a war, which many condemned, it is now necessary to stay for quite a while to re-establish stability and security. Plus, if US was not in it at all for the oil or other ulterior motive, why didn't they help when the Hutus and Tootsies were raging civil war in Africa where there could've been no other reason but humanitarian concern for involvement? I can't help but being cynical about it being a way to gain support for Bush because people can be quite pumped about Wars that are "won".
Eliminating Saddam was something many would've wanted, but that is not the reason that was given and that alone is not enough to justify the disempowered state Iraq was left in. Blair helped perpetrated this illegitimately so it's surprising he has no regrets.
+ 1
Seriously, this is becoming more of a thread of unjustified insults than a response to the thread title itself.
Sure but Blair went further than the evidence allowed. He didn't say that they suspected that they had WMD's he said it was "beyond doubt". He should have resigned after none were found.
murphyad
Member
Actually, it was, given the level of intel they had on Iraq's WMDs, or lack thereof.
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
Oh, no doubt. I never agreed with the WMDs thing. It is obvious how the US and Britain could have used Saddams history as justification though.
Well it's not really obvious as minus the WMD's they would have had a much tougher time getting public support for the war.