Ken Bigley Has Been Murdered...

[P.K.]

Semantics bore me when they are used to avoid debate. They tend to appear when the issues are being lost.

 

Thanks.

[matty]

The last show of strength has the Sadr lot handing in their heavy weapons for cash. Not exactly the action of a dedicated force is it?

 

The media has shown Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra are “no-go” areas,

but virtually the whole western part of Iraq is under "insurgent" control, even many parts of Baghdad are not under coalition control.

 

This is happening while the US troops have been ordered to keep their heads down, and not get too many of themselves killed so it won't look bad for GWB's election campaign.

 

Not exactly the action of a dedicated force is it?

[P.K.]

Do you want low, medium or high?

[matty]

Errr, I think you will find that the oil revenues will go to the Iraqis. What, you think the US wants to prop them up forever? As to an illegal invasion why don't you ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs what they think of it?

I beleive the war was unjust and illegal.

 

I think oil revenues will eventually go to a US designated puppet government, the average Iraqi citizens will not be much better off, and the US will get their Iraqi oil super cheap.

 

Look at the track record for US intervention in the Caribbean & South America - destabilising local economies and governments, propping up puppet governments, in return for cheap goods while the local "peasants" end up being worse off. Why should I beleive the US would want to do anything different with Iraq????

 

Of course the Kurds and marsh Arabs weren't fans of Saddam, but at least before the start of the war the Kurds had some sort of financial and political autonomy, they still have this, but now they feel much more threatened by other Islamic factions.

 

By the way, we are no more of a target now than before. We were always a target. Our infidel boots soiled the Holy Land kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Try and come up with solutions other than bleating about moral high ground against religious fanaticism which by the way cares not a jot for human life. When dealing with them there is no such thing as the moral high ground. To them it is a laughable concept and a weakness they can exploit.

 

"We" (Britain/UK whatever you want to call it) were never that much of a target in the first place.

 

I didn't realise that Kuwait was the "Holy Land" either

 

Think you'll find that most Islamic nations were also against Saddam invading Kuwait (another puppet leader appointed/approved by the west in return for cheap oil).

 

The US has made itself quite a target for it's exploits in the middle east, that's why 9/11 happened in the US and not the UK.

 

By supporting the US, we have enraged many thousands of what would be moderate Moslems, and turned them into potential terrorists, therefore making ourselves a much more likely target than ever before.

 

To the big US businesses set to profit in Iraq, "cares not a jot for human life. When dealing with them there is no such thing as the moral high ground. To them it is a laughable concept and a weakness they can exploit."

[P.K.]

Errr, I think you will find that the oil revenues will go to the Iraqis. What, you think the US wants to prop them up forever? As to an illegal invasion why don't you ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs what they think of it?

 

I beleive the war was unjust and illegal.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cannot question your beliefs. I just think you are completely wrong.

By the way, we are no more of a target now than before. We were always a target. Our infidel boots soiled the Holy Land kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Try and come up with solutions other than bleating about moral high ground against religious fanaticism which by the way cares not a jot for human life. When dealing with them there is no such thing as the moral high ground. To them it is a laughable concept and a weakness they can exploit.

 

"We" (Britain/UK whatever you want to call it) were never that much of a target in the first place.

 

I didn't realise that Kuwait was the "Holy Land" either

 

Think you'll find that most Islamic nations were also against Saddam invading Kuwait (another puppet leader appointed/approved by the west in return for cheap oil).

 

The US has made itself quite a target for it's exploits in the middle east, that's why 9/11 happened in the US and not the UK.

 

By supporting the US, we have enraged many thousands of what would be moderate Moslems, and turned them into potential terrorists, therefore making ourselves a much more likely target than ever before.

 

To the big US businesses set to profit in Iraq, "cares not a jot for human life. When dealing with them there is no such thing as the moral high ground. To them it is a laughable concept and a weakness they can exploit."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Complete and utter BS. Who said Kuwait was the Holy Land? Osama hates us for being allowed into Saudi, not Kuwait. The US being the biggest contributer in Saudi to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait brought about 9/11. Don't you know anything? By all means tilt at inexplicable big US business windmills. It won't explain a thing. Jeeeeze.

[P.K.]

I beleive the war was unjust and illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

[ans]

"US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s."

 

So they waited two decades to go in and do something about it?

[joeyconcrete]

I have many doubts about the real intentions of the US led invasion.

 

Since reading that ExxonMobil are on target to 'rebuild' much of the Iraqi oil industry. There's also many people who suspect links between the US administration and ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil are reported to be the main contributors to Bush's election campaign.

 

All very iffy

[simon]

PK: The fact that Saddam was an evil dictator isn't really under question. Should we invade all evil dictatorships?

 

We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was an evil dictator and a killer. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, he posed a direct threat to us. But for years we supported and then tolerated Saddam despite knowing that he was an evil killer. Witness the famous picture of oil tycoon,Donald Rumsfeld greeting Saddam in 1983.

 

Personally - I will not doubt any evidence showing how evil Saddam is. But I will question the timescale against which such evidence is released and reported. Especially in the run up to the US election. The Bush campaign will be keen to now release any evidence against Saddam.

 

I think that John Kerry is a lousy candidate. His economics, especially, seem very wild, vague and protectionist. Though Bush has also been leaning towards protectionism. But I still hope that John Kerry wins. Anyone other than Bush, IMO. But I won't be holding my breath. I'm not hopeful that the US is ready to accept yet how much it has wasted world support since 9/11.

 

Sheesh - even if Britain and America really wanted to invade Iraq and really thought that it was the right thing ..... well they have failed to make the policy work. The country now poses a much greater threat than it did before. The region is now less stable and the war was so badly conducted that they have created a new Beirut - a centre for nefarious tiny groups with weapons and vague agendas.

 

People like Donald Rumsfeld seem to have believed that the relatively small US forces would be welcomed as liberators. They seem to have failed to have actually considered the nature of the region - and the country, which was only really held togther by Saddam. Political people like, and close to, Donald Rumsfeld seem to have been able to over rule good military advice.

[matty]

Saddam

 

Our infidel boots soiled the Holy Land kicking Saddam out of Kuwait

 

That gave me the impression you were inferring Kuwait was the "holy-land", I now take it was not what you meant.

 

Kuwait & Saddam still have nothing to do with 9/11 though, it didn't happen because the US "re-liberated" Kuwait.

 

Don't forget it was the US that bankrolled Saddam and Bin Laden in the first place.

 

Saddam was a very evil man, but as Simon posts, you don't just go about invading sovereign nations, just because they are at the hands of an evil dictator.

 

The spin on the war from the US/UK now, is we knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but we had to change the regime and take Saddam out of power.

 

To invade a sovereign nation to change it's regime is illegal in the UN charter, therefore I still stand by what I said about the war being illegal and unjust.

 

I'm just as glad as anyone else that Saddam has been removed from power, it just would have been much better all round if we would have done it with UN backing.

[When Skies Are Grey]

I find the whole public display of grief over the last weekend on this quite distasteful. Much the same sentiments as held over the Diana bebarcle. Public displays of grief like this simply cheapen real personal grief (imho)

 

The guy had left the UK years ago and was working in Iraq to make a fast buck before his retirement. OK what happened to him was brutal but no more shocling for his family as for the families of the UK soldiers blown up by suicide bombers or shot whilst on patrol. Those guys didnt choose to go there and they certainly wont be getting paid anything near what Bigley and the rest of the Government backed raqueteers will be getting. Where is the minute silence at football grounds for our soldiers??

 

I would hate to think that the Goverment would milk this story just to prove how nasty those Iraqi militants are

 

I see that the FO have now amended their travel advice

 

Stable door - horse bolted. or telling us something that most sane people already knew!!!

[Bill Posters]

I heard on the radio yesterday about a software engineer who was offered a special deal in Iraq :-

 

1) £25,000 per month

2) Min. 3 month contract

3) Full Bodyguard

 

He turned it down. Decided his life was woth more than £75,000 !

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

"US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those graves, and several others (though nowhere near as many as the US try to make out) were discovered immediately after the war, and were known about for years by western intelligence and the Iraqi people.

 

The only reason this grave is now being investigated is that they have decided to obtain some forensic evidence to bring charges against officials of the Saddam regime. They just happened to choose this one as the 'test' to provide evidence.

 

They just happen to announce it as the November election approaches, and forget to mention it has been known about for at least two years.

 

The evidence gathering team needed to do forensic analysis of a grave site to get some evidence, and just happened to choose this one.

 

(I am really disturbed by how little you lot seem to know of the political situation in the region and the level or ignorance. Do you ever read serious newspapers or listen to the World Service? Or do you just rely on satellite TV* for your news?

 

 

*Rupert USA citizen arse licking shi t.

[P.K.]

PK: The fact that Saddam was an evil dictator isn't really under question. Should we invade all evil dictatorships?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, not all of them. Only those with oil reserves.

I also agree that Kerry is a poor lot. Bush will probably get back in. However a point to bear in mind is that the military put together the entry strategy and the politicians put together the exit strategy. Says it all really.

The guy had left the UK years ago and was working in Iraq to make a fast buck before his retirement.  OK what happened to him was brutal but no more shocling for his family as for the families of the UK soldiers blown up by suicide bombers or shot whilst on patrol.  Those guys didnt choose to go there

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You couldn't be more wrong. You sign up to the army to go to war. As we have been a little short of conflicts in the British Isles it's a fairly safe bet that your active service will be abroad, in this case Iraq. If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.

"US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those graves, and several others (though nowhere near as many as the US try to make out) were discovered immediately after the war, and were known about for years by western intelligence and the Iraqi people.

 

The only reason this grave is now being investigated is that they have decided to obtain some forensic evidence to bring charges against officials of the Saddam regime. They just happened to choose this one as the 'test' to provide evidence.

 

They just happen to announce it as the November election approaches, and forget to mention it has been known about for at least two years.

 

The evidence gathering team needed to do forensic analysis of a grave site to get some evidence, and just happened to choose this one.

 

(I am really disturbed by how little you lot seem to know of the political situation in the region and the level or ignorance. Do you ever read serious newspapers or listen to the World Service? Or do you just rely on satellite TV* for your news?

 

 

*Rupert USA citizen arse licking shi t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the delay is down to putting together an Iraqi team to investigate it and having those responsible to put on trial for it.

 

I too despair of some of the knowledge holes that appear. People banging on about how important it was to find WMD, justification, moral high ground and all the rest of the crapulence as if it made any difference. We in the West need a stable Middle East to function. With Iraq out of the frame it's neighbours are safer and they just might be able to persuade Iran it does not need a nuclear capability any more. Can you imagine what Saddam would be doing right now if he knew Iran was ramping up it's weapons capability? It doesn't bear thinking about.

 

On another note I was watching an interview with that nice Mr Blix the other evening. He made it quite clear that in all his sessions with Blair he hadn't the slightest doubt that Blair was absolutely convinced that Saddam posed a threat. He also made the point that although the top Iraqi echelons probably wanted nothing to do with Osama because of the instability it could bring the rank and file further down was riddled with sympathisers. You know, the ones that were actually producing the nerve agents and powder mustard gas as used on the Iranians and others.