Iraq War Inquiry

[pongo]

And the UK and USA do not invade countries remove oppressive regimes because of concern for the people. The elites in the West don't care. They'd sooner support (and do support) nasty regimes if I good for maintaining western corporate power and control over people.

 

True, probably not true and sometimes true IMO.

[Republican]

I mean, that we need the oil. It isn't just about control or money, it is about the total dependence on the oil from that part of the world, that we all need to live this oil lifestyle.

 

Most of the world has been explored for oil. Only a few deposits of un-tapped oil remain here and there. Beyond cheap oil is the expensive stuff, whether tar sands or just heavy oil. And that is too costly, and too pollutant to drill out. This Island is totally dependent on oil.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV I really hope one day soon conscription comes back an and you end up on the first draft, I would put money on a good number of ex forces posters here queuing up to re-enlist just for the entertainment value of watch you.

What prompted this comment? What does me possibly going into the armed forces have to do anything? In any case, I wouldn't end up conscripted, I wouldn't allow it, even if that meant gaol.

 

True, probably not true and sometimes true IMO.

Why do you think it is probably not true that the elite groups in society care about such things? And history does bear out that when there is a good return on keeping people oppressed in other countries then the UK and USA would support it. Just look at the role of the United States in Latin America over the past fifty years.

 

I mean, that we need the oil. It isn't just about control or money, it is about the total dependence on the oil from that part of the world, that we all need to live this oil lifestyle.

 

Most of the world has been explored for oil. Only a few deposits of un-tapped oil remain here and there. Beyond cheap oil is the expensive stuff, whether tar sands or just heavy oil. And that is too costly, and too pollutant to drill out. This Island is totally dependent on oil.

It is about control, but such control is effected for a reason. There is no need to invade to maintain control of it, however. If you have a government that is compliant with the West's economic practices and rules then you are on for a bargain. The later occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan followed after and simply ensure that in the long term such countries will have friendly governments. But the need for oil doesn't make it right that such the Western governments and corporations have control over the people and that people are killed.

[pongo]

True, probably not true and sometimes true IMO.

Why do you think it is probably not true that the elite groups in society care about such things?

 

You said "The elites in the West don't care". I think that they do. Sometimes for strategic reasons eg "hearts and minds" etc. Also individuals and small groups within your ruling elites sometimes become incredibly motivated by the belief that what they are doing is right. Charlie Wilson's War (the book not perhaps so much the movie) details that kind of involvement. Or, say, someone like Oliver North. And those two would have probably seen themselves even as people who were challenging elites within their own governments.

 

ETA: nobody ever thinks that they are the elite. The elite is always someone else. Eg the way in which the middle mass and aggressive malcontents in Britain are prone to imagine a liberal elite which, of course, exists only in their crazy minds.

 

And history does bear out that when there is a good return on keeping people oppressed in other countries then the UK and USA would support it. Just look at the role of the United States in Latin America over the past fifty years.

 

I agree that the powers do sometimes seem to support oppressive regimes. Sometimes. Not always.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You said "The elites in the West don't care". I think that they do. Sometimes for strategic reasons eg "hearts and minds" etc. Also individuals and small groups within your ruling elites sometimes become incredibly motivated by the belief that what they are doing is right. Charlie Wilson's War (the book not perhaps so much the movie) details that kind of involvement. Or, say, someone like Oliver North. And those two would have probably seen themselves even as people who were challenging elites within their own governments.

Though I would add in terms of the concept of 'hearts and minds' that such caring is not done out of genuine concern but rather because keeping the people sweet is the means to an end.

[Gladys]

It was a bad war; the majority knew at the time it was a bad, contrived war. Ministers resigned and denounced it. The UN didn't support it. It was just so wrong on so many levels. Not to say that the outcome of ousting Saddam was wrong.

 

Then Afghanistan, that was not so bad it was kind of sutainable; it was a strangely medieval society which harboured much ill both against its own people and the rest of the world. I think most people supported that. But now what do we have? A corrupt government which we, the good guys, installed; an intractable military problem where the 'good guys' are dealing with several foe (war lords etc) and in notoriously difficult terrain; and a country whose only sustainable industry is opium as it was when the Russians tried to break its back in the 80s.

 

There are similarities between the two: neither has a clear exit strategy because the reasons for entry are just so unclear; neither has actually achieved the original aim of returning the whole country to governance under international norms and neither country has been 'liberated', just occupied.

 

So the west is in there chest-deep in both cases and will find it very hard to withdraw. In the case of Iran it was on the basis of misrepresentations of the real threat. In the case of Afghanistan, it was on the basis of a misconception of the real scope to engineer change.

 

Both being now the classic 'buggers' muddle'.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Then Afghanistan, that was not so bad it was kind of sutainable; it was a strangely medieval society which harboured much ill both against its own people and the rest of the world. I think most people supported that. But now what do we have? A corrupt government which we, the good guys, installed; an intractable military problem where the 'good guys' are dealing with several foe (war lords etc) and in notoriously difficult terrain; and a country whose only sustainable industry is opium as it was when the Russians tried to break its back in the 80s.

I think it is just as bad. Just as wrong and just as immoral. It is just that we are moral hypocrits that makes such a war seem so supportable.

 

And yet by 2003 it seemed that we were all still too hoodwinked by the propaganda from the government machine and media fooling us into thinking that there was some humanitarian mission going on and that we are still the good guys.

 

Before the late 70s the Afghan economy was a more diverse than it has ever been since. It has been the Afghan War in the 80s, the rule of the Taliban, and the recent war that have hindered development.

 

There are similarities between the two: neither has a clear exit strategy because the reasons for entry are just so unclear; neither has actually achieved the original aim of returning the whole country to governance under international norms and neither country has been 'liberated', just occupied.

Neither had a clear plan past invasion. And in the case of Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban was never even on the cards when the US first decided to go after Al Qaeda.

[jimbms]

LDV I really hope one day soon conscription comes back an and you end up on the first draft, I would put money on a good number of ex forces posters here queuing up to re-enlist just for the entertainment value of watch you.

What prompted this comment? What does me possibly going into the armed forces have to do anything? In any case, I wouldn't end up conscripted, I wouldn't allow it, even if that meant gaol.

Why does that not suprise me, there is always a contingent of snivelling little cowards in any conflict who think it is ok that others suffer so they don't have to. One day you will need someone to help you out in a situation that could end up with you or someone you care about injured, be it the police or a friend, let us hope they afford you the same sense of duty you afford others, i.e. say bollocks to you and let you face it alone.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You're just foolish enough to believe that if people are conscripted that it simply must mean there is a real duty that must be fulfilled and should be fulfilled, and similarly a fight that should be fought. If servile mindsets lead people to want to allow themselves to be conscripted for the sake of benefitting the rich and powerful then fair be it.

 

And you have lost me in your talk of helping others in respect of conscription.

[Republican]

It is soley about oil. You have to read some books on this subject or watch some documentaries.

 

A world population of nearly seven billion is too much.

 

Oil is everything. Modern day farming, health, medical science. Air travel, there is no replacement. Invading Iraq was about getting the oil out for the world market, as the years and decades go by, what is there is needed. There is a likely energy crises and will hit within less than two decades. Anywhere from now to then.

 

The subject isn't pretty.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well Iraq would never have happened if the country had no oil, but then the whole recent history of Iraq would have been completed different were it not for oil. It is simplistic to just argue: that the Americans wanted oil so they invaded. There is more to it than that.

[manxy]

Well Iraq would never have happened if the country had no oil, but then the whole recent history of Iraq would have been completed different were it not for oil. It is simplistic to just argue: that the Americans wanted oil so they invaded. There is more to it than that.

Whether we've been told the true story or not is questionable and whether people take any notice or do anything about it now is probably unlikely.

 

So was it all about power, profit, ego, connections, blinkered direction, misdirection or was Bush/Blair right in going in and trying to stop the abuse of power/killing etc when sanctions didn't seem to affect Saddam and would they both be accountable for War crimes?

 

Should be a lengthy and costly inquiry all the same and somehow it wouldn't surprise me to see it fizzle out.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So was it all about power, profit, ego, connections, blinkered direction, misdirection or was Bush/Blair right in going in and trying to stop the abuse of power/killing etc when sanctions didn't seem to affect Saddam and would they both be accountable for War crimes?

The invasion of Iraq and animosity of the government has nothing to do with crimes (they aren't war crimes anyway, he killed people within his own state).

 

The UK and USA don't operate to put an end to oppression, abuse of power, etc, except when there is a clash with their interests. They satisfy their (business/corporations) own interests and ensure that these are not affected negatively.

 

If you think for a minute that anyone in government or those who have most power (corporations/business) gives a fuck about some poor, unimportant Kurds then you are sorely mistaken. Just because we (the people) kinda care is a different thing. Same with Afghans. Just count the numbers of civilians who have died as 'collateral' due to the terrorist behaviour of the USA and UK in Iraq and Afghanistan - doesn't really make it look like there is too much consideration for the welfare of the oppressed.

[asitis]

I think Tony Blair must be related to Ann Reynolds !!, when one statement is shown to be a load of rubbish the 'cause' changes to something else.

 

He realises he has a problem with the enquiry and is preparing the ground for some more 'spin'.

[Republican]

Tony Blair would lie, he can't tell the truth behind what it was all about. A post oil world would end up being a dangerous one, so there isn't a plan B.