Chinahand Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Its interesting. Iraq war legitimacy 'questionable' says ex diplomat Inquiry told Iraq could not 'use' chemical weapons Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Just goes to prove Bush and Blair and the pair of scheming lying bastards I always thought they was and are far more dangerous than Sadam ever was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Ahhh but it has kept lots of arms businesses in business, it has also shown those stupid Iraqis how much better than them the US and the west are and erm.....oh yeah they humiliated their one time friend Sadam (but notably his family in America were given special treatment, or was it Bush bought weapons from them, or was it something to do with Israel? I forget but there was some stuff about the Hussain family and doooh I can't remember maybe it was Dick Chaeney and Tamilflu again - my memory sucks lol) . It was a piss take from day one. They will spend a fortune on these enquiries, it will not bring peace in Iraq, it will not bring justice for the Iraqi peoples, it will not find Blair and Bush to be warmongering slime balls - but it will keep plenty of 'enquiry gods' in a lap of luxury til the next pointless enquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Unfortunately, it will not tell any of us anything that we didn't already know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 So why the fuck didn't people rise up and do something? Everybody is like "Yeah, yeah, dreadful, they never had them WoMD, nor chemical weapons", makes me really angry. That doctor, you know the one who had a 'heart attack' whilst hanging himself from a tree, more intelligent than the entire British parliament put together, he's dead but thats ok...meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Erm Jimbms do you really believe that? Clicky Sadam killed between 70 and 125 civillians every day for over 20 years. You then add on Iraqi military deaths and those in Iran and Kuwait as a consequence of his wars. The daily count is monsterous and multiple times higher than what the Iraq Body Count gives which puts the death toll at about 40 per day since the start of 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Erm thebees - Sadam had WMD - he lost a war and was forced at gun point to destroy them that was in the early 1990 - he then tried to get them again, and tried and tried and tried. He tried so hard he didn't care that sanctions against him killed and weakened hundreds of thousands. It was a huge surprise to the world that those sanctions had in fact basically achieved their purpose and he'd never been able to weaponize his later attempts, but he wanted to, and had tried to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Sadam killed between 70 and 125 civillians every day for over 20 years. Disease and famine directly caused by inequality and poverty kills many more than that every day around the world but is given nothing like the same international political priority. No urgent deadlines at the UN etc. It is that inequality which leads to much of the social instability which fuels terrorism and leads to wars. I know it's corny to talk about the military - industrial - complex - but everyone with a brain knows that Iraq was about contracts. And the oil. If it had been about stability in the region then Saddam would have ultimately been courted and contained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Erm thebees - Sadam had WMD - he lost a war and was forced at gun point to destroy them that was in the early 1990 - he then tried to get them again, and tried and tried and tried. He tried so hard he didn't care that sanctions against him killed and weakened hundreds of thousands. It was a huge surprise to the world that those sanctions had in fact basically achieved their purpose and he'd never been able to weaponize his later attempts, but he wanted to, and had tried to do it. That was in the olden days me old China At the point of the war, he had nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Pongo - if a lion was loose in central London it would probably kill fewer people than die there in road accidents. If you were Boris Johnson's adviser what would be number one item on your agenda? And this lion by having its range in one of the most important parts of London has a direct impact upon the commerce not only of the city, but also all the parts of the world that trade with London. There most definitely is a commercial/contractial angle in the issue, and I'm happy to include it in any analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 The lion analogy is pointless and a bit patronising to be honest. They helped keep Saddam in power for years despite knowing exactly what he was like all along. They caused him. He was politically and economically useful in terms of their regional money games. Not so much different from the Shah of Iran in many ways although the outcome was different. And not so different from the Mujahideens either. Strategic friends with a common enemy one minute - sworn enemies the next. Both sides as bad as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 No doubt the west courted Sadam - they felt he was their middle eastern pet - until he showed he wasn't a pet, and wasn't contained and started not caring what good old Uncle Sam thought. So you think it makes a difference if the Lion had previously lived in the Zoo? Sure their used to be a Persian Leopard in their which got progressively sicker and when it escaped it wrecked its cage, got into a fight with a persian wolf and died, releasing the wolf. And yes their a Saudi camel in there too which if it gets out there's a risk it'll also kick lots of people to death and cause a similar amount of havoc. I'm as in favour as anyone trying to domesticate these animals, but I'm not sure there's an easy solution to that problem - the home range of these animals doesn't seem to fit any cooperative, house trained animal. Both sides as bad as each other - well the fact is George W is now writing his memoirs and the White House is occupied by someone else. There wasn't such a mechanism to get rid of Sadam - or to reign in the behaviour of any of the other animals endemic to that region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 No doubt the west courted Sadam - they felt he was their middle eastern pet - until he showed he wasn't a pet, and wasn't contained and started not caring what good old Uncle Sam thought. So you think it makes a difference if the Lion had previously lived in the Zoo? Sure their used to be a Persian Leopard in their which got progressively sicker and when it escaped it wrecked its cage, got into a fight with a persian wolf and died, releasing the wolf. And yes their a Saudi camel in there too which if it gets out there's a risk it'll also kick lots of people to death and cause a similar amount of havoc. I'm as in favour as anyone trying to domesticate these animals, but I'm not sure there's an easy solution to that problem - the home range of these animals doesn't seem to fit any cooperative, house trained animal. Both sides as bad as each other - well the fact is George W is now writing his memoirs and the White House is occupied by someone else. There wasn't such a mechanism to get rid of Sadam - or to reign in the behaviour of any of the other animals endemic to that region. long lunch ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandkirk Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 It's a bit late. Let's this chap say that to the Irakees who died and to the soldiers' families who died there too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 I think the enquiry will achieve nothing other than to waste money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.