Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

The US intelligence agencies were relying on Bush not asking too many questions and the U.K. asking as normal, none.
We always tow the line and will again. You watch!

The biggist sheep were Blair and our "intelligence" services.

Actually i think there may have been more to it that just politicians and our intelligence being 'sheep'; i think it was clear from the vast majority of the public that there was little penchant for an invasion so it's not like the politicians on the while thought they needed to do it to stay 'popular' or anything.

I read an interest article around that time after the invasion that stated that the American Intelligence agencies (i think it was the FBI) effectively blackmailed Blair and some of his key MPs with bringing down their Government by releasing information that would have exposed some key MPs as being involved with some child sex scandals. I can't remember where i read that, but at that time it was the same site that ran a story about Blair's daughter having attempted suicide after the stress of school after her dad had taken the country into Iraq. The article reported that there was a general agreement at the time in the press not to report it as they had sympathy with the situation that the Blair family was going through.

I'm pretty sure a few years ago during all that time when injunctions were being leaked, that was one of the stories that came out almost a decade later, and it made the story about the FBI blackmailing our parliament to go along with the invasion all the more plausible...

 

[glorygloryeze]

I partly agree, if we are against tyranny we should be against it everywhere

if delivering democracy and capitalism to the world 1 blunt trauma at a time is the plan then let's get on with it

Not how it is though is it? Democracy and Capitalism is brought to some places, via bombing and 'shock and awe' if necessary; then the same "agents of freedom" suppress democracy elsewhere whilst propping up despots (Saudi Arabia, Yemen anyone?).
Its the double-standards that will continue to cause the cycle of war and retribution; the PR 'cheerleaders'in the press who continue to spout such nonsense exacerbate things as well.

If the mantra of the USA/UK was simply "we are seeking power and dominion wolrdwide and will work to achieve that by any means necessary" the whole veneer of "freedom and justice" as the current moral code would fall apart.
It would make the quest for such power and dominion harder (as more people would feel much more "free" to rebel as the moral high horse wont exist) but there'd at least be more respect and clarity about where people fitted in the world imo

 

[scaramanga]

Really? So we invaded because Saddam "wasn't doling what he was told"?
Shall i leave it for others to list others who are still to be invaded (going back 30 years +) because they "didn't do as they were told"? I'msure there are enough flouted UN resolutions that some can list..

When what they're told to do is not attack a country we have a defence treaty with then I don't see why that's an issue for you.

Should we not have defence treaties? Should we not honour them once they're signed?

It was a war borne out of America's vision to remodel the Middle East to their preferences, which included regime change in Syria and Iran. Afghanistan effectively having had already had regime change meant that getting those other 3 would fit together very nicely; their own Neocon bibles that were written even before the invasion show this clearly (see "Project For the New American Century").

There's a lot of guesswork and speculation there. One thing that should be very clear to anyone of sound mind is that regime change was absolutely required in Iraq. It should have been done over 10 years earlier, and that was a fudge up, but it still needed doing.

The reason actually given publically for the invasion was almost irrelevant. The joke is that people still believe he hogwash that it was "to protect us and make us safe"!! LOL
It was always to do with American Geopolitical interests as well as getting some lovely new construction and oil contracts for some key corporations like Halliburton and Chevron.

Citation needed.....

 

[parklane1]

it's certainly far from ideal, you shouldn't focus on individuals though, the PM isn't a dictator, they can't do anything without support and they certainly don't make decisions without "expert" opinion

also, not suggesting this is true of you, had we found all the nasty devices that were rumoured it wouldn't have changed the majority of the stop the war phalanx's feelings on the whole thing, imo

Well America make a habit of going to war when they want something and Bush was looking for anything to give him the go ahead, step in his poodle Blair with the flimflam about nasty devices and against several warnings that they were not there. Those who suggest we went in on moral grounds should look at themselves and their lack of them.

 

[parklane1]

Really? So we invaded because Saddam "wasn't doling what he was told"?
Shall i leave it for others to list others who are still to be invaded (going back 30 years +) because they "didn't do as they were told"? I'msure there are enough flouted UN resolutions that some can list..

It was a war borne out of America's vision to remodel the Middle East to their preferences, which included regime change in Syria and Iran. Afghanistan effectively having had already had regime change meant that getting those other 3 would fit together very nicely; their own Neocon bibles that were written even before the invasion show this clearly (see "Project For the New American Century").

The reason actually given publically for the invasion was almost irrelevant. The joke is that people still believe he hogwash that it was "to protect us and make us safe"!! LOL
It was always to do with American Geopolitical interests as well as getting some lovely new construction and oil contracts for some key corporations like Halliburton and Chevron.

I do not disagree its LOL, but what a price has been paid for doing it and sadly there is nothing funny about.

 

[billyiddo]

Has the middle east ever been free from conflict and considered a peacful region with it's people living side by side in harmony? How far back would you have to go find some peace in the region?

Im certainly no expert but i don't think you can point the finger at The West and say this is all your fault, that's denial/blame shifting - people seem to pick and choose what it is they take at face value from these people as well : "we're fighting a holy war in the name of religion against non believers" = these people aren't true Muslims they've been brainwashed - "we're attacking The West bevause of your fireign policy" = see it's all OUR/YOUR fault, can't have it both ways

 

[scaramanga]

Actually i think there may have been more to it that just politicians and our intelligence being 'sheep'; i think it was clear from the vast majority of the public that there was little penchant for an invasion so it's not like the politicians on the while thought they needed to do it to stay 'popular' or anything.

Most of the British public probably couldn't spell Kuwait let alone point it out on a map. I bet if you asked a pub full of people you'd walk out being able to count on one hand the number of people who knew the word "Kurd". Doesn't surprise me that saving lives over there meant little to most people. Still doesn't make it wrong.

I read an interest article around that time after the invasion that stated that the American Intelligence agencies (i think it was the FBI) effectively blackmailed Blair and some of his key MPs with bringing down their Government by releasing information that would have exposed some key MPs as being involved with some child sex scandals. I can't remember where i read that, but at that time it was the same site that ran a story about Blair's daughter having attempted suicide after the stress of school after her dad had taken the country into Iraq. The article reported that there was a general agreement at the time in the press not to report it as they had sympathy with the situation that the Blair family was going through.

I'm pretty sure a few years ago during all that time when injunctions were being leaked, that was one of the stories that came out almost a decade later, and it made the story about the FBI blackmailing our parliament to go along with the invasion all the more plausible...

That's a pretty massive accusation - the kind of thing that needs evidence rather than hearsay and innuendo make IMO. Again, citation needed.....

 

[Baleforce]

Well America make a habit of going to war when they want something and Bush was looking for anything to give him the go ahead, step in his poodle Blair with the hogwash about nasty devices and against several warnings that they were not there. Those who suggest we went in on moral grounds should look at themselves and their lack of them.

that's the only reason anyone has ever gone to war

 

[parklane1]

Has the middle east ever been free from conflict and considered a peacful region with it's people living side by side in harmony? How far back would you have to go find some peace in the region?

Im certainly no expert but i don't think you can point the finger at The West and say this is all your fault, that's denial/blame shifting

I agree with that 100%, however the West has made it a lot worse worldwide by sticking their oar in ( led as usual by the " home of the brave, land of the free" )

 

[Baleforce]

Has the middle east ever been free from conflict and considered a peacful region with it's people living side by side in harmony? How far back would you have to go find some peace in the region?

Im certainly no expert but i don't think you can point the finger at The West and say this is all your fault, that's denial/blame shifting

nope, but that's a global problem, people can't live side by side in harmony, if there was only 2 people left alive on earth they would eventually find a reason to want to kill each other

 

[parklane1]

that's the only reason anyone has ever gone to war

Not sure that is always the case, but America usually do it for gain or because they disagree with how others live.

 

[scaramanga]

I agree with that 100%, however the West has made it a lot worse worldwide by sticking their oar in ( led as usual by the " home of the brave, land of the free" )

Has it?

The recent increase in religious lunatics seems to have coincided pretty closely with the spread of the internet to me. It's just as likely (if not more) that there are more people falling into the disgusting trap of religion because before a mental could only spread his delusion to those within earshot - now it can be spread to millions in seconds.

Also, if terrorist attacks are in revenge for what the US does, they must be a really bad aim - most of the attacks have missed by thousands, if not, tens of thousands of miles.

EDIT:

And another point - if the US attacking a country in another part of the world is enough to make a man from Belgium go and attack innocents in a country that isn't even the US or the country being attacked, I don't think the issue lies with the actions of the US.

 

[Baleforce]

Not sure that is always the case, but America usually do it for gain or because they disagree with how others live.

of course, it wouldn't be worth it otherwise

 

[parklane1]

Has it?

The recent increase in religious lunatics seems to have coincided pretty closely with the spread of the internet to me. It's just as likely (if not more) that there are more people falling into the disgusting trap of religion because before a mental could only spread his delusion to those within earshot - now it can be spread to millions in seconds.

Also, if terrorist attacks are in revenge for what the US does, they must be a really bad aim - most of the attacks have missed by thousands, if not, tens of thousands of miles.

Yes it has, go any where around the world and the general impression of America is of forcing their opinions on others. And in some parts of the world Americans are probably the most hated race.

As for America being bad at aiming that is about the only thing I can agree with you in this thread. Friendly fire has killed hundreds including British. Not getting involved with the religious argument with you ( been there done that) it would be pointless against your closed mind on that subject.

 

[parklane1]

of course, it wouldn't be worth it otherwise

So that is always the right reason to kill people then?

 

[scaramanga]

Yes it has, go any where around the world and the general impression of America is of forcing their opinions on others. And in some parts of the world Americans are probably the most hated race.

And it's that which makes France a target for terrorists because.........

I'm not even convinced it makes the US a target for terrorists - seems far more likely that their interpretation of their religion is far more to blame.

As for America being bad at aiming that is about the only thing I can agree with you in this thread. Friendly fire has killed hundreds including British.

Not sure if you're joking or if you genuinely misread my post that much.

Just in case it's the latter, the point I was making was that terrorists aren't aiming at the US on the whole. They're targeting anyone who doesn't conform to the imaginary teachings of their imaginary paedophile friend.

Not getting involved with the religious argument with you ( been there done that) it would be pointless against your closed mind on that subject.

My mind is far more open to this than yours (you seem to have a problem with this kind of thing on other threads too). Present me with one single shred of evidence for a higher power and I will immediately change my mind.

 

[Baleforce]

So that is always the right reason to kill people then?

I'm not saying it's right, but it's been the case since man first picked up a stick

life is cheap

 

[parklane1]

And it's that which makes France a target for terrorists because.........

I'm not even convinced it makes the US a target for terrorists - seems far more likely that their interpretation of their religion is far more to blame.


Not sure if you're joking or if you genuinely misread my post that much.

Just in case it's the latter, the point I was making was that terrorists aren't aiming at the US on the whole. They're targeting anyone who doesn't conform to the imaginary teachings of their imaginary paedophile friend.


My mind is far more open to this than yours (you seem to have a problem with this kind of thing on other threads too). Present me with one single shred of evidence for a higher power and I will immediately change my mind.

(A) 9/11

( B) Yes I'm sorry I did misread your post

(C) I am not religious ( but i have already told you that once) so I have no idea where I would find one shred of evidence, but I respect the right of other to have a belief ( unlike those with closed minds).

(D) As for me having a problem in other threads with this kind of thing, I suggest you look at your opinions of those who do not agree with you and how you dismiss their opinions and how you try ( and fail) to belittle them.

 

[parklane1]

I'm not saying it's right, but it's been the case since man first picked up a stick

life is cheap

No answer to that.

 

[scaramanga]

(A) 9/11

Terrorist attacks in the US are a tiny proportion of those worldwide. If US foreign policy was to blame for terrorism (or even a significant proportion of terrorism) wouldn't you expect more US targets?

It seems to me that (much like the stated aims of ISIS) it's democracy and apostasy they're fighting.

(C) I am not religious ( but i have already told you that once) so I have no idea where I would find one shred of evidence, but I respect the right of other to have a belief ( unlike those with closed minds).

I have no issue with people believing in the Tooth Fairy. My issue is when they infect other people's minds with it - especially those of children - it's a form of abuse.

(D) As for me having a problem in other threads with this kind of thing, I suggest you look at your opinions of those who do not agree with you and how you dismiss their opinions and how you try ( and fail) to belittle them.

If you're going to convince people you have an open mind then you're going to have to either agree with objective evidence or provide alternative evidence other than your own opinion.

As I've stated before, show me evidence, I will believe you.