parklane1
Tony Galvin
Your words below.
(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.)
Spinning plates again I see.
Last edited:
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Your words below.
(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.)
Spinning plates again I see.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
evidence suggests there is no argument to it either
we care about certain other humans, that's it, we compartmentalise people, those that are in we care for and mourn when they are gone, those that are out, which is obviously an incredible majority, we give absolutely no thought to whatsoever
the cruelty humans can show to others knows no bounds
parklane1
Tony Galvin
That is true, man is a animal who resorts to it in times of war.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
war is the inevitable conclusion of our instinctive nature
we don't resort to it, we manufacture it
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Nothing moral about Iraq war. We went to war because Saudi and Kuwait got scared and we couldn't afford losing control of the oil supply in the region. Morals have fudge all to do with it or Bosnia would not have happened. Chechnya, Kosovo and Syria and others. Iraq was a calculated political decision sold on lies and costing lives innumerable.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I don't know how to use the like button.
The 2nd Gulf War was a huge mistake, but we have the benefit of hindsight as another poster said. Saddam bad man, morals blah blah, all nonsense reasons for the war. We do not have a morality driven foreign policy. We go along with America and America acts in the interest of America, they don't fight for morality -- else we'd have gone to war with China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea (let's not bother listing all of the countries whose governments have acted in morally repugnant ways towards their own citizenry or others) etc. etc.
The strange thing is that 'The West' continue on the path of regime change in the Middle East, with Gaddafi (Libya left in chaos, incase anybody had any doubts about the mess we made of Iraq) and now Assad, and we think it's the right way to go.
That the failure of regime change is so obvious to even a melt like me that I am led to believe that chaos and perpetual war in that part of the world is infact the objective. It does continue to justify the American Military Industrial Complex (no lizard men required, President Eisenhower popularised the term) and allows governments of all types to increase their power over their own citizens in the name of security. Never let a crisis go to waste and all that.
I mean, if we really wanted a regime change that might have a positive outcome for the Middle East, we'd be invading Saudi Arabia. But the House of Saud does as they please and The West just starts whistling and looking the other way. It could be argued that the biggest and most dangerous sponsor of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia, whether financially, ideologically or directly with perpetrators (such as 9/11). Bin Laden was a Saudi for phucks sake, how high profile do the terrorists have to be before USA/Britain wants to do something against that country? Morals eh?
The strange thing is that 'The West' continue on the path of regime change in the Middle East, with Gaddafi (Libya left in chaos, incase anybody had any doubts about the mess we made of Iraq) and now Assad, and we think it's the right way to go.
That the failure of regime change is so obvious to even a melt like me that I am led to believe that chaos and perpetual war in that part of the world is infact the objective. It does continue to justify the American Military Industrial Complex (no lizard men required, President Eisenhower popularised the term) and allows governments of all types to increase their power over their own citizens in the name of security. Never let a crisis go to waste and all that.
I mean, if we really wanted a regime change that might have a positive outcome for the Middle East, we'd be invading Saudi Arabia. But the House of Saud does as they please and The West just starts whistling and looking the other way. It could be argued that the biggest and most dangerous sponsor of terrorism in the world is Saudi Arabia, whether financially, ideologically or directly with perpetrators (such as 9/11). Bin Laden was a Saudi for phucks sake, how high profile do the terrorists have to be before USA/Britain wants to do something against that country? Morals eh?
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_...0s/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Read this with interest today. There's a clear agenda in the author's writing of course so the view is biased. However the raised some points that are being discussed in this thread.
Read this with interest today. There's a clear agenda in the author's writing of course so the view is biased. However the raised some points that are being discussed in this thread.
Craig_J
Mido
I agree with the writer. The west have always been hypocrites and do certainly make themselves enemies all over the world. It's a known fact that the Americans and us Brits overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government as they were going to nationalise Iranian oil putting American and British businesses out of pocket. So their response is to overthrow the democratically elected government and replace them with a tyrannical Shah.
Now today people wonder why some middle easterners have a mistrust of the West and why there are YouTube videos of thousands of Iranians chanting death to America.
Quick to forget their own misdemeanours.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
I had written a long reply on Wordpad before my laptop randomly shut down - and i hadn't saved it...arggghhhhh!
I'm going to attempt to write it again so here goes:
The Project For the New American Century was a neoconservative thinktank that was formed in 1997, many of the original 25 who signed the founding statement of principles went on to serve in George W Bush's administration, including dingdong Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The PNAC's goals were to take advantage of America's position post the Cold War and shape a new century "favourable to American principles and interests" and create an international American Hegemony. The founding statement of principles,plus the list of original signatories can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/2005020...americancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
This thinktank wrote another (90 page) document in the same year entitled "Rebuilding America's defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century." This can be read here: https://web.archive.org/web/2013060...cancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
This basically detailed how the USA should increase its Defence spending and build up its Military might to further "extend its position of global leadership" and continue and enhance the post Cold War "Pax Americana" (American Peace). It listed the following countries as being the biggest potential threats to this new hegemony: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Lybia and Syria. The first 3 in this list were then labelled by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union "Axis of Evil" speech as America's main enemies in terms of "helping terrorism" and seeking "weapons of mass destruction". Later that same year, Undersecretary of State, John Bolton, then added Cuba, Lybia and Syria to the "Rogue State" list in his own "Beyond the axis of evil" speech.
I mention this because the PNAC American neocon group (who then went on to have a big influence on George W Bush's international strategic and defence policy) had already written that these countries were a threat, or at least not allies to them in their stated aim of creating this worldwide American Hegemony. The "axis of evil" speeches were just verbalising what had long been planned beforehand: America would go on to bring about regime change to almost all these countries (or at least make big attempts to do so).
So already we can see that the push for regime change in Iraq was being planned for long in advance of the invasion and long before September 11 (when this neocon group pushed straight away to blame it on Saddam and use it as another reason to bring about regime change in one of the countries they had identified as threatening the new century of "American Peace".)
Now when it comes to looking at the Economic angle in terms of contracts related to the invasion of Iraq, it can be seen that the Halliburton Company (which had dingdong Cheney, George W Bush's vice president, as CEO between 1995 and 2000) were amongst several oil, energy and construction companies that made big BIG bucks from the invasion. In fact, it was reported 10 years after the invasion that a company that was originally a spin-off company of Haliburton (KBR - Kellog,Brown and Root), had made the most money off the war "by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels."
This is detailed here: http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905 and http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3rzk643Ni
In fact in an article written by CNN (yes, CNN) 10 years after the invasion they quote from many of the "horse's mouths" that the Iraq war was indeed mainly to do with Oil: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
One key excerpt has quotes to this effect from some key 'players':
Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
So it's not like it's being denied; In fact, there is even evidence that there were already plans being put in place BEFORE the invasion about how the Iraqi Oil fields were going to be 'divvied' up as were amongst key corporations: http://www.judicialwatch.org/maps-and-charts-of-iraqi-oil-fields/
So as i say it can be seen that the Iraq invasion was not really driven by any moralising over Saddam's or to uphold any 'defence treaty' and was mainly to do with exploiting Iraq's vast oil fields and also to further American Geopolitical interests in terms of its power in that region as well as globally (eventually).
This is there for all to see with the statements, pronouncements and information (and more importantly,actions) detailed above. In fact it's actually quite fancyful to believe otherwise...
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I agree as you doubtless know.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
As do I.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Halliburton and Iraq Conflict = motza for Rumsfeld and Cheney. Conflict of interest doesn't compute in corrupt US polity.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1409...useholds_from_Brighton_and_Hove/?ref=mr&lp=16
The effects of the benefits cap on one town, it does feel like parts of the south will lose some of their identity, which is a little sad for me.
The effects of the benefits cap on one town, it does feel like parts of the south will lose some of their identity, which is a little sad for me.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
The champagne charlies are ok though.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I actually agree with the lefties on this. I know some feel people should just move to cheaper areas, and this is a problem in London as well. But it makes me sad and also makes me feel we are as a country missing out and losing something when communities go. It also does not help in a town with two universities to allow so many houses in a small town to go to let for multi occupant student housing, especially when students do not have to pay council tax, leaving a heavier burden on the remaining population.
Either way I find it sad and think it is a form of social cleansing and it leaves me feeling sad. I might be to the right but that is on things like law and order and the EU. Sometimes I think things are going to far with this government and it will become worse as the opposition are imploding in on themselves. We need a strong opposition.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I expect nothing less from a Tory government, it will only get worse one bit of good news is that Osborne ' (always reminds me of Mr Bean) has scrapped plans to mess with Tax Credits.
They will find some other way to screw with the less well off, its what they do.
People always say that but he's squeezed higher earners far more than Labour ever did e.g. higher stamp duty rate for buy to let / 2nd home, high stamp duty if buying via a company, lower rate tax relief only on buy to let mortgages, no childcare cost relief if earning above £100k, no child tax credits above £60K, lifetime pension allowance cut, annual pension allowance cut, huge clampdown on tax avoidance with deals with Switzerland and other regions, closure of tax avoidance schemes like the film one, removal of employee benefit trusts etc.
They are trying to sneak through the tax credit changes, by making the cuts to universal credit, which is the system they plan to fully replace tax credits with eventually. As usual with any kind of budget/spending review, more detail emerges in the time after the announcements.