I wouldnt believe "My" Prime Minister in anything regarding Iraq or Terrorism these days, the fact that you do scares me a little.I am informed by your Prime Minister that, since 1993, Al Qaeda has attacked 26 separate countries, 23 of whom are neither Britain, Spain nor the U.S.A.
Somewhat intriguing, that...
I believe he did say that 26 countries had been affected by Terrorism, not specifically Al Queda. I would suggest his figures are on the low side.. obviously his idea of terrorism differs from my own, I'd include places like Sudan, Burma and Palestine which he doesnt appear to.
I was using the word "Terrorist" as that is what they now are. I also believed you disagreed with the word "Insurgent".. however fair enough, at that time they were insurgents.The U.S. trained what might more truthfully (especially in the salient circumstances) be considered insurgents; to call them terrorists is to credit them with a status that neither they, nor necessarily Bin Laden, had earned at that point.
Funny, too, that you don't look upon these insurgents-cum-terrorists as acting in any fashion you would term "interventionist".
And actually, i do consider them to be "Interventionist".. the conflict had absolutely nothing to do with the USA. They just decided to use it to carry on their "war by proxy" with the USSR.
Amazing how many people died in this war between the superpowers... that belonged to neither country.
Then we should conclude which of the following?
1. Absent U.S. alliances, Israel's presence in the mideast would lose all objectionable aspects, and peace would reign, or-
2. Absent U.S. alliances, Israel could be treated to a successful Holocaust, and would thereby cease to be an irritant, allowing peace to reign.
No, that what you insist we want.
As has been debated many times... all that is wanted is no blatant favouritism.
You know, such as condemning one side and not the other, blocking Resolutions that are otherwise unanimous, trying to get the ones that were passed followed.. you know, a little fairness.
No one could ask more, and it wouldnt stop the terrorism... it would however cut the hatred of the USA coming from the area a little, which is a start.
They still are, and there are more of them even more widely dispersed. Good Going.True; all of them were dispersed throughout the mideast, with heavy concentrations in/about Israel.
Yes, more people are dying in Iraq; this is not a new fact.
Glad you agree.
I was very specific in saying "In the 10 years prior".Really.
Estimates of Saddam's victims run into the hundreds of thousands...how many does the U.N. claim we've killed with our carelessness?
To claim that we know any such thing is just a bit specious; in fact, the more specious, the more we can count on hearing claims to the effect that we "know" thus-and-such to be true.
Rhetorical tactics?
I think so...
The vast majority of Saddams crimes against his people happened before and just after the Gulf War.
He then put down an uprising that the Americans instigated and didnt help with, i believe.. and the majority of people killed were militia.
The vast majority of civilian deaths between the Gulf war and the invasion were caused by the bombing of the country by the UK/USA in the years between, which are part of the coalition.
Take this number and add in all the others from the actual invasion, falujah etc etc etc..
Yes, the coalition wins hands down.
Once Saddam had proved he was a bastard capable of doing anything, he had very to do except the occasional "Disappearance" and beating/rape, to keep the fear he wanted.
They always were allied with Al Queda. I did point out what the whitehouse website said, prior to the invasion.Hmmmm.
I thought we liked Turkey...I thought we liked the Kurds, too.
Are the Kurds currently allied with Al Qaeda?
All Al Queda training camps were in Kurd controlled territory.
The Kurds are now, as they have been for years, bombing Turkey as part of a seperest movement.
Guess its a little confusing whether you would call these Freedom Fighters or Terrorists as you like both...
Yes, i'll agree that there is corruption everywhere.There is corruption everywhere, Rat-do you think it is on the order of that which exists in other civilized countries, or is it more reflective of warlords in the further reaches of, say, the Sudan?
Hard to tell, I'd say.
As to the remark about Human Rights, I'll settle for stating I find it more than a little offensive, but, hey...no big deal.
I find any burgeoning friendship between Iraq and Iran a cause for hope; I wonder why you feel otherwise?
Since you regard the possibility of a positive relationship between Iraq and the U.S. with such suspicion (anent our rampant capitalism), I'd think you would be pleased with the Iran/Iraq situation...
Hard to say where its more pravalent than elsewhere, Russia is probably one of the worst at the moment on that front, i'd say.
However, its quite rare for a convicted fraudster to be given the position where he's in charge of the nations lifeblood.
Unless, of course, he also gave a lot of the false intelligence which caused the invasion and keeps coming up with documents that link certain parties to certain actions, that are usually found to be forged after the problem of those persons has gone away.
Handy guy to have around to produce "evidence" any day of the week.
The Human Rights thing... well, maybe you should look more closely at what rights you actually have left, not just the blatent camps, kidnappings and tortures that have happened.
Not just the US, that was Tongue in Cheek.. we have our own things happening around this question in the UK, as your aware.
Thats a scary thought.Hey, if it's good enough for Blair, it's good enough for me.
It sure isnt for me or a majority of Brits.
Gordon Brown won the election for Labour, not Tony Blaire... he is well aware of this fact.
Where the hell did that figure come from?You and the rest of the thirty-odd percent of Brits who think similarly.
The majority of the UK, from Polls, have always been against the war in Iraq, usually between 60-70% being agianst.
You either have your figures back to front, or your thinking i voted Labour.. who gained power with over 60% of the electorate voting AGAINST them.
Hardly a mandate
He was bending over backwards to show he had nothing.The Iraqis (that is to say, Saddam) were intent on running as far as they thought the U.N.'s reluctance to act would take them.
I thought everyone knew that.
Including suggesting ways the Inspectors see that they'd been destroyed, by bringing in technologies that could analyse the locations.... a move the UK/USA blocked.
The UK/USA were intent upon Invasion, come what may.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Bookmarks