dave?
it's my argument, that sanctions and supposed "diplomatic" efforts strengthened Saddam, and weakened the possibility of him being removed by his own people, basically cos they we're dying out in droves, and ruthlessy repressed all the more in the face of a threat to his grip on power.
the premise for war was WMD's. that was a lie, as is now clear? so on what premise do we invade a country? cos we don't like his politics? well we'd be doing that allover the world wouldn't we? cos we want his oil given depleted US reserves? cos we need a stategic military presence in the gulf to whip the other arab states into line? to bolster israel? to have bases for our own WMD's?
the US doesn't often actually invade, cos it has no need to. it trains terrorists itself, then sends them in to do it's dirty work. see pretty much the whole of central and south america, afghanistan etc. alqaeda and bin laden sprang from terror camps funded by the US and managed by the CIA to destabilise the russsian presence there. the taliban were welcomed open armed by the US later cos they wanted an oil pipeline, and cheap oil.
i won't even go into the argument that heroin production in afghanistan was allowed to massively escalate cos it gave a source of revenue to the taliban, or that the prohibition of prescribed heroin in this country stooped round about the same time at pressure from the US, and kicked off the boom in street heroin that has your house being burgled. call me a conspiracy theorist, but i'm pretty unshakeable on this.
neil x x x ;)
Farenheit 9/11 is a very moving, eye opening film but as has been said, before it's only Michael Moore's version - don't get me wrong I loved it. I have also read 'Dude Where's My Country' which backs up a great deal of what you see in the film.
One of the scenes in the film is Britney Spears telling the people of America that they should trust their president. I was of the same opinion about Tony Blair - would that change anyone's mind about voting for him again in the future ??
At the time, I was sure that UK Forces would not be put at risk unless there was conclusive proof of WMD - which we all know there wasn't. It certainly makes you sit up and think whether we (the voting people) are seen as assetts or sheep that have to be controlled.
Look at America and how Bush and his government run the country based on fear. The fact that each news station displays a daily alert status backs this up. Listen to his speeches they all talk about 'ridding the world of terror', he moves forces back to the US to protect the home soil. If it is true - it's one massive propaganda stint that could keep him in office !
I've got some family living in the US and they don't think that the current candidate aginst Bush (Kerry) will be much better !
I'm not that interested in politics and the above is only my view for what it's worth !
But it's a terrific film and if you haven't seen it I'd throughly recommend it which will allow you to draw your own conlcusions.
I have to dissagree that Bush isnt the most dangerous man in the yeilds the most power and has the biggest force on the he was the leader of any other country then he would be wanted for genocide.
no dave
it's imperialism of the worst sort, but they're more subtle about it. they'll do it culturally, econimocally, and militarily. they are just sneaky with the military, and do it covertly. and yes you aren't safe on your street because US policy encourages the kind of terror attack we're supposedly fighting. when the US destroys lives willy nilly to pursue what is an empire building agenda the world over, people are gonna kick back they only way they can. unfortunately suicide bombers are pretty cheap weapons.
i guarantee you that once this little fiasco in iraq is sorted, they'll move back into south east asia. keep a close eye on korea. useful little whipping boy that one eh? it's ok for india and pakistan to have nukes in asia, but then they are both supposedly US allies now eh? but a nice little war to keep a military presence over there would be useful to whip them into line too eh? i tell you the groundwork is already being laid there mate.
neil x x x ;)
I'd have to disagree - America is expanding its commercial empire and is doing so by force
The Iraqi war(s) had much more to do with the commercial control of key oil fields than any supposed international intervention
Afghanistan served no purpose other than to free up vital routes for US firms Oil pipe line
If the US truly did intervene on a humanitarian basis then why not get involved in Zimbabwe where Mugabi kills, tortues and ruins lives , or what about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians? Morally the US should /could intervene, but it won't because Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East - not to mention finanical ally for all the US weaponry they buy.
Another point would be that whilst not officially doing so, as someone else mentioned in this thread the US have supported/funded countless uprisings and coups in developing countries where it suited them their political agenda - to me that is expanding your commercial empire aggressively, just secretly.
For me, Bush is the most dangerous man in the World and i sincerely believe he poses the biggest threat to me and mine - i want the world to be as safe a place as possible, and whilst human nature dictates that people will kill and hurt one another, what we need is good men/women in charge to minimise this happening and prevent total world chaos and cultural mistrust - which is where we are now cos of Bush's creation of a culture of fear. The world has been a much scarier place to be since 9/11 unquestionably, but to what extent is this fear justified? How much of it suits Western politics? Thats what scares me i guess.
An interesting thread,a shame that like world politics it is male domintated !!!
(Need I imply that this is one of the problems with the world today? Please nobody quote maggie at me, right or wrong she did what she believed in)
Farenhite 9/11 is an interesting film but really you need to read mor and look deeper before forming an opinion. Having said that anything that gets the British public interested in what is going on in their name and at their expense is to be applauded.
Stop the War, were delivering the anti Bush/Blair message when something could have been done to stop things progressing to the state they are in when lives , British , American and Iraqi could have been saved.
The real question is what should happen NOW, unfortuantely it is not as simple as withdrawing troops , we need a change of goverment but like America, is the opposition going to be any better?
yeah dave i take your point, what alernatives are there.
in some cases there is no longer an option but to go to war, because half hearted diplomacy and conflict of interest has made war inevitable, as in WW1 and WW2. in other cases the prospect of war is so terrifying, it can hardly even be considered, as in the Cold War, which was war by any other name, and led to the kind of military expansion and covert empire building that now sees the US pretty much in charge of the world, and the UN.
the point on sanctions, that they were UN imposed. well after massive pressure from the US, the support of US allies like ourselves, and the undermining of support against them with sweeteners and threats, the US managed to keep it's agenda on track. the UN is hardly open, and too many deals are done behind closed doors, and the real power there lies with the US too. i believe the UN was pretty much against sanctions after a time, as well as the Iraq war, but forced down a certain path, so i'd discount your argument that sanctions had widespread support from other UN members.
the diplomacy done in the case of Iraq was a smokescreen i'd say. as was the supposed search by UN inspectors for WMD. as soon as it was looking obvious that no such weapons existed, the US rode roughshod over everybody else, and had Mr Blair running round like a lap dog trying to persuade everyone else to back the US. when that support wasn't so forthcoming, they went to war anyway.
i think most of are saying that at least in this case, it was completely unneccessary to even propose a case for war. it wasn't an either/or, war/no war situation. all too often lately US intervention only takes place when the puppets they place in power and support get stroppy and stop playing the US' game. there are many dictators the world over abusing their populations, but they don't have anything worth fighting over, so we ignore them. there are others who are just as bad too, but they're friendly and play our game so we ignore them killing their populations too. i see no moral case that puts saddam in a different category to so many other rogue states.
you can only judge each case on it's merits. i would support WW2 no question. i will never support wars fought solely to further the interests of one superpower, at the expense of huge swathes of the worlds population. when the next crisis does arise, you just have to look at who's interests are really being served, and what's the real agenda behind the lies. i have no easy answers on this one.
neil x x x ;)
a dvd is a dvd !!! you dont know whats happeing personal issuses what inteligence the u.s has !!! saddam was a bastard to his country so we had to step in yearh people got hurt but if we letf it what then would have happend hmmmmmmm i say go george bush !!! ...its like saying ok bin laden bomb us if ya want mwe wont do nothing back er me thinks not thats why we need to fight back otherwise they will just take piss !!!
im only 21 mate lol i dont know history im just saying what i see now !!
The link was interesting reading but all links and reports (even those by governments) I take sceptically as they are leading people into their propaganda that achieves their aim, whatever it is. Mind you the part of the link that says " As a group who serve only the prince of darkness and themselves, they are without a doubt the biggest terrorists of all. Woe to those who call good, evil and evil, good." says a bit about the author and their opinions.
The sanction that he failed to obey was to do with WMDs that he already admitted to. What happened to them? Where did they go? Where were the plans? Where are the components? These were already things that he and his regime had admitted to having. They don't just vanish, they are passed on to "friendlies" who then give them back when the dust settles. The Saddam regime (not the Iraqi people) were hoping that the dust would settle one day and then it would be all systems go to achieve their ultimate aim.
I don't know about America giving the green light for the invasion of Iraq. I have never heard of that theory. I can't see that as a fact since the UN and USA condemned it immediately. Some info would be gratefully recieved here.
Saddam was not threatening his neighbours? He had just finished a 10 year war with Iran before he started on Kuwait. That is threatening behaviour to me.
Free world is somewhere you can opt out of. People are free to emigrate to any country that is not under American influence that they wish to. I can have my voice, I can vote, I can protest. That is freedom to me. Maybe not ideal but it is a darn sight better than some countries.
The middle-east used to be a strategic area that needed to be militarised by the super powers. That used to be France and the UK. But technology took over and permanent military presence is not essential. The use of missiles has made the middle-east obsolete for the need of bases. However, they are always desirable but not essential to have e.g. training, etc.
Dave_Notts
The fact that the US orchestrated the invasion of Iraq for purposes other than its stated objectives of removing WMD must be a conclusion that is reached when one examines the evidence put in the public forum .Do we all recall the dossier that Blair promised to publish that would clearly indight Iraq in terrorist and other world threatening activities, if I recall correctly it turned out to be a thesis taken from a degree student. How he managed to amass more evidence of subterfuge than the intelligence services of the worlds most powerful nations defies my comprehension.
Do you remember that Bush promised that Iraqui oil revenues would immediately be turned over to the Iraquis once the war was won(is it won or are people still dying ?)Well I assume this has happened, I seem to remember reading that when contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq were awarded (by the Amercians) only American firms were allowed to quote and therefore only American firms will glean the rewards of the lucrative contracts (unless they tossed a few sprats to the French to shut them up ...strangely the French opposed the invasion ...but then the French did run the Iraqui petrochemical industries prior to the invasion)So remind me again who is getting all the oil revenue ....oh yeah the Iraquis of course ...good job really as they wouldnt be able to afford to pay for the reparations without it .
Neils point (and Neil I love you in full flow without the FFS's and Wtf's and errs and by the way you put across an excellent argument) that the UN is manipulated is partially true ...However on the Iraqui invasion issue the UN was obviously strong enough to force Bush to denounce it as being toothless... ...in fact by pursuing this course he was totally undermining the role and power of the UN . Maybe there is a future for a real and powerful UN but it must be seen to act upon its sanctions ...Israel should be made accountable for many many sanctions they have completely and cynically ignored.
As for more women in charge ...well they can't be much worse ...can they ? :shock:
I quite like women on top anyway.
Please please realise that the only hope for all our futures is for the decency and values of the common man(ok sorry ..person) to hold up . Our future is for us to recognise corruption and cast it out via our democratic rights ..one day politics will get the message .. I hope that day starts soon with deposal of GW Bush
The question I put forward was alternatives to war, not the rights, wrongs, global domination by the Americans, lying about WMDs, etc.
Another question I put forward was about where the WMDs that Saddams regime admitted to in the early 90's went.
Answers on a post card.
Dave_Notts
Great thread and some great thoughts...
But the real issue, and one most pertinent to readers and subscribers to SH is this...
Have the Bushes and the Blairs ever rattled the bedposts as a foursome? Is there a special dogging section on Bush's ranch, or does TB have swinging parties at Chequers?
I bet that George loves to dress in fine silk undies, and I reckon Cherie has been made watertight by some burly looking guys from the Albanian Diplomatic Mission...
Ah well, if you think about it, it's really obvious they like to swing... 'cos they've been fucking the whole world for the last four years...
I leave you all with the pleasant mental image of GWB rutting away on top of Tony... the two sweating like pigs in a sauna!
It also seems like our news stations especially the BBC have given the most unbaised coverage of the lead up and the eventual war in so it's not totally unbiased but compared to the american coverage its well and truely unbiased.A lot of the american public turn to the BBC in these times because they know that they show in most part the facts.
So maybe our nation is a lot more free than the americans will ever be.
Neither Bush nor Kery are people I'd chose as friends.
I suggest, before going overboard on the anti-Bush rhetoric, that you run several checks on Kerry.
While he may be "reporting for duty" he certainly seems to have had an interesting military career, and his financial backers seem to be a varied and interesting group as well.
As for "the" war, life's tough. Iraq had, until 1991, a forward and agressive campaign to acquire knowledge and materials for "nuclear advancement"...although quite why they started to design and build centrifuges to produce enriched fuel was never explained...
What is documented, and very well, was the use by iraq of chemical weapons in the iran-iraq war, and against the kurds. Resulting in many tens of thousands of deaths.
There was nothing surer in this world than that the USA was going to retaliate for the september 11 attack. It had to, whether justified or not. And it did.
It is no good going on about the UN being weakened, the UN is just a good career move for innocuous people who are useless at anything else. It has never been much use and never will be.
Whether you like Bush, Kerry or the US is irrelevant.
The USA has no need of the rest of the world, and would seriously like the rest of the world to "Butt out and go away"
I'd rather have a bullying America than a benign America.
Under Kerry you would not have a fairer America, his history (if you bother to check it out) suggests you would have an America pretty much the same as it is now, run by big corporations and money men. No change there then.
If you don't like America now, you'll hate them more soon.
Under various treaties between this country and America, all information held by our government on YOU, is also held by the American government as well. Oh, and it was a conservative governernment that put that through, although since the same people run the country under any political colour it seems likely they ain't got much of a clue what's going on anyway.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: 
.But on a slight possitive,i actually feel proud to be English,because if we were like them we would have bombed the Irish when the IRA were bombing us.