-
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
Mate,
Sad to see that you believe in lizard men. They aren't real.
Hugs!
Steffy
That's what the illuminati want you to think! Open your eyes!!!
I'm sorry, but mate, the invasion of Iraq was one of the worst-thought-out acts in the history of Western military interventions. It was a total cluster-f*** from start to finish, from the PR put forward as justification, to the poorly executed operations, to the lack of desert appropriate equipment and hardware, to the complete lack of planning as to what to do when we'd toppled the regime.
It had to be kneejerk. As I said, we hadn't been paying that region serious thought (in terms of the security and intelligence agencies)
That BBC article, one, is from the BBC who in my view were scandalous in their coverage of the issue. But what the article is about is not a proven lie, it's Bush being his usual doughnut self and saying what he is concerned about without proper advice. Its not a lie. There was intelligence that Iraq was seeking to develop a nuclear program. It was unreliable intelligence and as the article said there were serious doubts about Its reliability. However you're not showing me any evidence of a deliberate lie. If anything, Bush banding around OTT statements did more to harm the credibility of the war than to further his aims. He was just thick, as heads of state go.
The article in the mirror did not have any truth or merit in it whatsoever. It was a scandalous attempt at smearing the reputation of our troops, using fabricated and staged evidence of an event that did not take place. Our troops did what they were told bravely and did not deserve to be used as a political football in this way. It was symptomatic of a disgraceful desperation on the part of various outlets do do everything they could to undermine support for our soldiers and the war. Rather than using facts and professional debate and journalism, the BBC, Guardian and Mirror as the chief culprits in my view contributed to a continued and incorrect assumption by many that the war was illegal and also that people were intentionally lied to.
Rather, the truth of the matter was that a short sighted president and a too subservient Blair made a panicked and ill-thought out decision, leading to a long-term cluster fudge of epic proportions.
And no, I don't believe saying the legality of the war can be debated cuts it. Not as far as legality goes. People saying the war was illegal as though it is fact are doing the same as accusing someone of *struggle cuddle* or murder based on opinion alone. Its not legally sound.
Legal analysis would be pretty open and shut on Iraq:
There is a general prohibition on the use of force in the UN treaty provisions;
Exceptions being in self defence and by resolution of the security council;
There was an active security council resolution authorising use of force against Iraq based on non compliance with cease fire conditions from the first Gulf War;
Not only that but Iraq was a pariah state continually proven to have acted in defiance of UN treaty, effectively removing itself from the treaty provisions by norms of behaviour.
There are arguments legally you can put forward to counter this, but IF Bush and Blair were to ever go on trial for war crimes the case would have very little, almost zero chance of success as the arguments for the invasion of Iraq being in compliance with UN security council resolutions and generally accepted norms of behaviour against an aggressive, pariah state, in breach of numerous international treaties and conventions, is extremely compelling.
It had to be kneejerk. As I said, we hadn't been paying that region serious thought (in terms of the security and intelligence agencies)
That BBC article, one, is from the BBC who in my view were scandalous in their coverage of the issue. But what the article is about is not a proven lie, it's Bush being his usual doughnut self and saying what he is concerned about without proper advice. Its not a lie. There was intelligence that Iraq was seeking to develop a nuclear program. It was unreliable intelligence and as the article said there were serious doubts about Its reliability. However you're not showing me any evidence of a deliberate lie. If anything, Bush banding around OTT statements did more to harm the credibility of the war than to further his aims. He was just thick, as heads of state go.
The article in the mirror did not have any truth or merit in it whatsoever. It was a scandalous attempt at smearing the reputation of our troops, using fabricated and staged evidence of an event that did not take place. Our troops did what they were told bravely and did not deserve to be used as a political football in this way. It was symptomatic of a disgraceful desperation on the part of various outlets do do everything they could to undermine support for our soldiers and the war. Rather than using facts and professional debate and journalism, the BBC, Guardian and Mirror as the chief culprits in my view contributed to a continued and incorrect assumption by many that the war was illegal and also that people were intentionally lied to.
Rather, the truth of the matter was that a short sighted president and a too subservient Blair made a panicked and ill-thought out decision, leading to a long-term cluster fudge of epic proportions.
And no, I don't believe saying the legality of the war can be debated cuts it. Not as far as legality goes. People saying the war was illegal as though it is fact are doing the same as accusing someone of *struggle cuddle* or murder based on opinion alone. Its not legally sound.
Legal analysis would be pretty open and shut on Iraq:
There is a general prohibition on the use of force in the UN treaty provisions;
Exceptions being in self defence and by resolution of the security council;
There was an active security council resolution authorising use of force against Iraq based on non compliance with cease fire conditions from the first Gulf War;
Not only that but Iraq was a pariah state continually proven to have acted in defiance of UN treaty, effectively removing itself from the treaty provisions by norms of behaviour.
There are arguments legally you can put forward to counter this, but IF Bush and Blair were to ever go on trial for war crimes the case would have very little, almost zero chance of success as the arguments for the invasion of Iraq being in compliance with UN security council resolutions and generally accepted norms of behaviour against an aggressive, pariah state, in breach of numerous international treaties and conventions, is extremely compelling.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
I think you are missing my major point.
I am sure you have read in previous responses that when it comes to 'letter-of-the-law-legality' then your point(s) withstand scrutiny. As I have observed a couple of times, batteries of incredibly rich lawyers have doubtless been deployed over the past 15 years at a vast cost to the public so as such 'legal' issues could be determined conclusively.
What I absolutely, 100% REFUSE to back down to you, or ANYONE, on, is the issue of lying and context. I believe there is FIRM evidence that people acted one way purporting one train of information whilst knowing the lack of accuracy/validity involved. Now, you your good self would concur that there is no specific 'law' against 'lying' thus the act of 'lying' is quite probably 'legal' in most cases...however, we could open this up down another avenue and ask who controls the UN, who backs the UN and who manipulates the UN to act as is seen 'necessary'...let's be honest, the security council resolution was made on bunk intelligence. That is undeniable. Whether you care to assume innocence on behalf of those who disseminated the contents of the 'intelligence' which led to that entire fudging mess or not is a matter of opinion.
As for your, frankly, scandalous assertion of the BBC and media's 'role' in war coverage, I will say this.
1) The soldier involved in that Mirror story continually claimed the abuses did go on. That they fabricated the photos is terrible, no argument there, but perhaps the biggest tragedy is that it whitewashed some clearly accurate allegations. There are frankly many other photos showing abuse by some troops of detainees. Your 'case' against the media cannot hang on one poorly-conceived and researched Daily Mirror procured photograph, and if it does, I would suggest you are doing all you can to opt out the moment you have found something which suits your viewpoint.
2) The BBC's coverage was excellent. That it didn't fit your view is frankly irrelevant to me. Of course, we are entitled to our opinions, but your slagging of them and their role is (in my view) extreme.
3) I have every sympathy for the troops on the ground. These kids were sent to fight a war which (as we are debating) in my opinion did not ever need to be fought and was done so for a greater set of economic reasons than ever-presented. They did not deserve to be put in such positions, positions which I might add the vast majority could not ever have been fully-prepared for given the cultural differences.
4) I hate George W Bush but I would not call him 'thick'...he served his paymasters with such devastating effect that the political climate of the Middle East was shifted forever and the Industrial Military Complex preserved. He was far from 'thick' he was remarkably good at doing what he needed to do (be a face for the majority and stay the fudge out of the way when Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld dictated policy).
I have to conclude by saying that your assertion that the 'War on Terror' was a knee-jerk reaction is incredible. You are effectively suggesting that two prominent world governments shafted it up yet came out of things providing such enormous financial benefits to their backers and supporters, as well as self-fulfilling a prophecy and perpetuating a revenue stream, PURELY because they were (at best) lucky. the most I can give you is that there was arrogance on behalf of those involved with regards to the geography of the regions being invaded and the cultural mores of the Middle East generally.
I agree to an extent but he does has two kids so that limits saving to an extent. I just think this policy smacks in the face of people who have never sought any help previously and didn't qualify as they are caught between earning too much but not enough to save a big deposit, nor qualify for any benefits. Whereas what the govt are doing is effectively giving a huge handout to those who have always had the assistance from the system and more.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Interesting Iraq war discussion over the last couple of pages. I think a discussion on the Anglo-American-Nato "Military Industrial Complex" would deserve a whole thread in itself...
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Why wouldn't the Republican elite and their neo-con boosters want a war in Iraq? Here's a motive...self interest! Donald Rumsfeld was a major share holder in Haliburton, who had major supply contracts with the US military. Saw a doco that showed that this patriotic corporation were charging US $500 for toilet seats to the US army at the time. The share price sky rocketed and Rumsfeld and his cronies made a packet over the ten years the war lasted. With these creeps, self interest is always the motivating force. Conflict of interest is not a concept appreciated by neo-con maddies.
Don't forget the lizards! It's not a proper conspiracy without the lizards.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Well we all know the " good old USA" ( land of the free home of the brave
) only go to war for two reasons ( 1) Do as we do or face the action. (2) How much money can we make.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Yep. The policies being handed are are defiantly anti-middle class. Even the ones that are supposed to focus on the middle class (first time buyer ISA) don't actually reflect real life. Deposit ( Tory) ,/ stamp duty relief (labour) can only be used on property up to £250k? Good luck finding one of those in the SE.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
No conspiracy, this is how 'business' is done in the neo- liberal utopia. They have no shame and no moral scruples are allowed to get between these parasites and a big bucket of money. The doco quoted official Haliburton invoices supplied to the US military.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Well we all know the " good old USA" ( land of the free home of the brave
You forgot
(3) remind our people why we exist
(4) deflect attention from our internal issues by vilifying someone else
(5) keep a large number of people out of the internal workforce so we don't have to create jobs for them.
War is as fundamental to the US economy as housing is to the UK
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I wouldn't say they are "anti-middle class", more neglectful of middle class, which I don't see as a problem, other people need the help more
thfcsteff
George Hunt
thfcsteff
George Hunt
One step further...preservation of a power-elite.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
No issue with giving people help - I highly support it and will always champion it.
I do have a problem with policies that reward lower or specific demographics disproportionately to others. Housing incentives are geared towards the lower end, when the problem is huge in the middle
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
that's how most things happen though, housing benefit, child benefit, free prescriptions, winter fuel allowance, that's kind of the point isn't it?
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
There is a difference between benefits that are designed to help people with a standard of livings and hand outs like giving people cheaper property.