Iraq War Inquiry

[pongo]

I've met the King of Jordan. All I remember of him was how short he was. His missus, however, was an absolute cream cracker! A lot taller than him as well. Tragically killed in a helicopter crash IIRC.

 

That's amazing. You should write a book.

 

Back tracking for a moment though - you implied that Freggyragh was a hypocrite for apparently ignoring the horrors of the Baathist regime (which I doubt he did). I am saying that the British government, whilst knowing what the Baathists were like, knowingly supplied and supported them for profit. Britain has a long history of supplying oppressive regimes with military equipment which has continued even under the PM Blair whose regime was utterly hypocritical in this respect having come to power talking about an ethical foreign policy.

 

Lets be absolutely clear that Britain did not go to war in Iraq because the Baathist regime which it had supported for many years was horrid.

[P.K.]

Back tracking for a moment though - you implied that Freggyragh was a hypocrite for apparently ignoring the horrors of the Baathist regime (which I doubt he did). I am saying that the British government, whilst knowing what the Baathists were like, knowingly supplied and supported them for profit. Britain has a long history of supplying oppressive regimes with military equipment which has continued even under the PM Blair whose regime was utterly hypocritical in this respect.

Wrong. I didn't imply Freggyragh was a hypocrite, I stated it quite plainly. I'm also not disputing that successive governments have sold armaments to some very dodgy regimes. Who can forget Thatcher arse-kissing mass-murderer Pinochet for example? This is common practice in administrations the world over so once again I'm not quite sure what point it is you're trying to make?

[pongo]

I'm not quite sure what point it is you're trying to make?

 

That you accuse people of hypocrisy whilst supporting hypocrisy.

[P.K.]

I'm not quite sure what point it is you're trying to make?

That you accuse people of hypocrisy whilst supporting hypocrisy.

Dear me pongo, I'm afraid that governments trading with dodgy regimes isn't exactly the earth-shattering revelation that I suspect you think it is.

 

China's human rights record is absolutely appalling - but everyone trades with them.

 

Also you can be quite sure that Iraqi officials didn't turn up with a shopping list that started with:

 

"We want to invade our neighbours with Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun and VX. So we need...."

 

Welcome to Planet Earth!

[Evil Goblin]

Ideally, of course, we should sell as many arms to both sides as we can and then encourage them to go to war. They can then use all the stuff we sold them and they will need to buy more! Sound business sense.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not quite sure what point it is you're trying to make?

That you accuse people of hypocrisy whilst supporting hypocrisy.

Dear me pongo, I'm afraid that governments trading with dodgy regimes isn't exactly the earth-shattering revelation that I suspect you think it is.

 

China's human rights record is absolutely appalling - but everyone trades with them.

 

Also you can be quite sure that Iraqi officials didn't turn up with a shopping list that started with:

 

"We want to invade our neighbours with Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun and VX. So we need...."

 

Welcome to Planet Earth!

I think Pongo has a point. You supported the Iraqi invasion and occupation and the Afghanistan conflicts because you see it as some moral crusade. Bad guys and good guys. You have mentioned this point very often. That the (supposed) good guys, i.e. Britain are sorting out the bad guys (Iraqi regime or Taliban). Yet you even recognise how the problem in these countries is largely the result of previous or ongoing Western (or American or British). It just seems more confused rather than hypocritical how you can portray this struggle of good vs evil.

[P.K.]

I think Pongo has a point. You supported the Iraqi invasion and occupation and the Afghanistan conflicts because you see it as some moral crusade. Bad guys and good guys. You have mentioned this point very often. That the (supposed) good guys, i.e. Britain are sorting out the bad guys (Iraqi regime or Taliban). Yet you even recognise how the problem in these countries is largely the result of previous or ongoing Western (or American or British). It just seems more confused rather than hypocritical how you can portray this struggle of good vs evil.

Welcome back!

 

I don't view it as a "moral crusade" at all. In fact, the word "crusade" is strictly off the agenda for obvious reasons. How remiss of you to mention it.

 

The fruitcakes eventually fall back on "Israel" as the motivator. Conceived in the guilt of the holocaust, just a little bit before my time actually. But at the end of the day any excuse will do for them. Nothing confusing about that I can assure you.

 

Next!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Fair enough, not a crusade, though certainly a conflict that YOU justify and support in view of what you believe to be moral about it. You outlook seems to be one based completely on the right and might of the USA and Britain. You say Saddam HAD to go - but one could equally argue that the Israel regime had to go or even the American, if we are to talk of what you mention as a stability problem in the Middle East and the world.

 

And yes, wars do feature civilian casualties, which is why there has to be an incredibly good reason why war MUST be chosen as the only possible cause to DEFEND. Clearly the US and British plans were hammered out with far less consideration to the burden of proof they should be required to meet, but of course these cowboys have far more power than most.

[Republican]

This was also a legacy of the wars past and present.

 

To put it bluntly from the web.

 

The U.S. dropped so much depleted uranium on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War that birth defects in Iraqi babies increased by 500 percent in the next 12 years. The radiation was so bad that 67% of American Gulf War veterans ended up having babies with serious birth defects as well. In 2003, we dropped so much depleted uranium on Baghdad that radiation levels rose to 2,000 times normal. Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Essentially, we have eliminated the Iraqi population (and many our of own troops) from the healthy human gene pool.

[Albert Tatlock]

Thatcher's disastrous and short-sighted policies caused the deaths of 255 UK service personnel in the Falklands.

 

They haven't reached that yet in Iraq, although it's probably close.

Reached today by a total of 256.

[P.K.]

So I read, clearing IED's, sad news.

 

Some more to come in Operation Moshtarak it would seem. I agree with the tactics though. Make it known you're coming. The civilians leave. The Taliban move into the killing zone.

 

Now everybody sing "Happy Drones are here again / The skies above are clear again / So let's sing a song of cheer again / Happy Drones are here again!"

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You agree with tactics that involve creating a situation where civilians flee their home in an already unjustified and immoral conflict. Nice!

[P.K.]

Better fled than dead...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Better that one group of terrorists fuck off and leave the civilians alone, rather than continuing with this war.

[P.K.]

Better that one group of terrorists fuck off and leave the civilians alone, rather than continuing with this war.

Agreed. Hopefully the Taliban and their "foreign" supporters will stand against Moshtarak and then they won't have to "fuck off" as you put it.

 

Hopefully the ANA can then fill the void left by the Taliban...