Bush and Blair found guilty of genocide in war crimes tribunal..

RichieC

Gadaffi was first a popular uprising in Lybia. there's your difference.

I wouldn't like to live under a dictator, but I'd rather it to a thousand pound bomb dropping on my house and killing my whole family. No regime is so tight that the people cant rise up and cause a stink. especially in the information age. Some will be shot but they will be on the streets of their own accord fighting for themselves.

IMO the Iraq war is being wrongly credited for the Arab spring.. I think it was Karl Rove on Fox news who floated that talking point.

Daithi 1

Yahew wrote: »

The euro thing is rubbish, so is oil. oil gets sold anyway, and is now more expensive than pre-war.

Petrol was 13c a gallon in Libya, cheaper than water, prior to the U.N attack !!!

More expensive now ? of course it is, but who benefiting from it ?

Libyans had free electricity under Gaddafi's rule, lets see if that one lasts !!

Edit : my mistake, it was 14c per litre.

* GDP per capita – $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit – $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses – $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad – at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies – with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment – no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the State.
* No Payment for electricity for the population.
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited.
* Petrol is cheaper than water. 1 liter of gasoline – $ 0.14.

Zebra3

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Yep, it was also against international law to supply him with chemical weapons which were used on Iranian civilians.

This is the reason that the Americans made sure Saddam was tried and hanged by an Iraqi court.

No dirty linen being washed in public with regard to America's activity in the 80s. This was pretty much the same attitude the Americans had post-WWII. charge the Germans with anything we didn't do.

For the ill-informed, I suggest you read this book.

snafuk35

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with a Dictator being over-thrown.

What people do have a problem with is the following:

1) WMD's. The U.S. claimed that Iraq had them, this was a lie and was eventually admitted by former members of the Bush Administration.
2) Saddam Hussein played a part in the 9/11 attacks. No he didn't, this was also a complete lie. The one tie the U.S. Govt had was that some members of Al Qaeda had been in Iraq a few times. By this logic, I know a few people from Cavan who were involved.
3) The War was not about Oil. This was also a complete lie, as before the U.S. had even invaded Iraq, they were already selling the Oil contracts to American companies.
4) The U.N. declared the invasion to be an illegal act of aggression, something which the United States completely ignored, despite the fact they have used the U.N. to say other countries are taking part in illegal Wars.

The fact of the matter is that United States and Britain illegally invaded a sovereign nation, with fabricated evidence and a false excuse to continue Bush Snr's war against Saddam.

You a directly contradicting yourself.

You have no problem with overthrowing a dictator but then you give me a litany of excuses??:D

Do you support overthrowing dictators or not? Yes or no?

Overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to decide their own destinies is always better.

Civil wars may well break out but in the long run fostering democracy, supporting multi-party parliamentary and a free vote by all citizens is where things should go.

How could you oppose the Iraqi democratic system which has witnessed millions of Iraqis exercising their franchise?

Yahew

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Petrol was 13c a gallon in Libya, cheaper than water, prior to the U.N attack !!!

More expensive now ? of course it is, but who benefiting from it ?

Libyans had free electricity under Gaddafi's rule, lets see if that one lasts !!

This is about the price of oil in the world market, not the price of oil in Libya. Libya subsidies are their own business ( and have no effect on world prices). Its also about the invasion of Iraq, not libya. Neither of which I support, as I don't believe the West should care about dictators, unless they are a threat.

The "its all about oil" crowd want it both ways. If oil flows and becomes cheaper, thats the reason. if it trends more expensive, thats the reason. You would think that an invasion would be about securing oil supplies - thus cheapening the prices. Big failure then.

The reserve currency status of the US dollar is not related to its position as a currency used for oil transactions - in any case, sterling is used where needed. The Euro is in no shape to become the reserve currency, and it wasn't then either.

I do have a conspiracy theory about the invasion, but those ones are trite and simple.

omega666

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Americans would have been utterly irresponsible to leave a maniac like Hussein who had killed tens of thousands of Kurds with gas and other WMD in power if he had the unquantifiable potential to potentially supply Al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with weapons.


The American's had no problem when the maniac was using chemical and biological weapons on Iranian's women and children back in the 80's.

**
According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."

snafuk35

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, it was also against international law to supply him with chemical weapons which were used on Iranian civilians.

I agree.

This is the reason that the Americans made sure Saddam was tried and hanged by an Iraqi court.

But would you prefer instead if Saddam was still in power?

No dirty linen being washed in public with regard to America's activity in the 80s. This was pretty much the same attitude the Americans had post-WWII. charge the Germans with anything we didn't do.

For the ill-informed, I suggest you read this book.

So you would rather a facist dictator was left in power because you oppose America?

Imagine if Jewish prisoners opposed the liberation of Auschwitz death camp because the Soviets who freed them operated death camps of their own in Siberia?:D

Nodin

snafuk35 wrote: »

..............

You may not like Bush and Blair but what they did if it was made illegal would harm future interventions.

It was illegal as it was conducted outside the UN charter. However as both have UNSC seats and a veto, there is no mechanism to punish either.

Daithi 1

snafuk35 wrote: »

I agree.



But would you prefer instead if Saddam was still in power?

Ummm, they armed him !!

Sonics2k

snafuk35 wrote: »

You a directly contradicting yourself.

You have no problem with overthrowing a dictator but then you give me a litany of excuses??:D

Do you support overthrowing dictators or not? Yes or no?

Overthrowing dictators and allowing the people to decide their own destinies is always better.

Civil wars may well break out but in the long run fostering democracy, supporting multi-party parliamentary and a free vote by all citizens is where things should go.

How could you oppose the Iraqi democratic system which has witnessed millions of Iraqis exercising their franchise?

Can you read?

I said people here have no problem with a Dictator being over-thrown, but perhaps I should stoop down a few levels of intelligence and point out I meant from an ethical point of view.
I then gave you the reasons that U.S. gave for the war, which were complete lies.
I then showed you how the U.N itself declared the invasion to be illegal, and therefore technically a War Crime.

And if you want to talk about how good it is that the United States took down a horrible man and dictator (which he was), why don't we discuss the numerous Dictator's the U.S. currently supports world wide, especially the ones in South America.

snafuk35

The American's had no problem when the maniac was using chemical and biological weapons on Iranian's women and children back in the 80's.

**
According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose.

So what?

I don't care why America finally overthrew Saddam.

That fact of the matter is that an evil dictator is gone and millions of Iraqis now have democratic future.

Iraq is a mess but so was post-war Japan and post-war Germany.

Did America overthrow Japan and Germany for humanitarian reasons or strategic reason of global power?

If you conclude that America defeated Hitler and Tojo for selfish reasons does that invalidate WW2?

American business people who profiteered from Nazi Germany later profiteered from WW2 and then profiteered from the Cold War weapons build up. Does that mean it was wrong to fight Nazism and to oppose Stalin?

If a convicted criminal saved drowning child would you have the child thrown back in the sea and wait until a lily white hero came to rescue it?

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of WMD during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s.

In 2003 the best guestimate of the international intelligence community - not just the CIA but the French, Russians and Chinese who opposed the invasion was the Saddam still possessed WMD. The truth is that they could only go on estimates on figures they had from the 1980s and the patching information they received from Iraqi defectors.

Iraqi defectors are now the high water mark of intelligence standards? Weren't most of them discredited? No ulterior motives on the part of these defectors possible? LOL.

Saddam Hussein had a history of supporting terrorism - the Baader Meinhof gang and other European terrorist groups, the PLO and most blatantly the Abu Nidal organisation who was given official offices in Baghdad! Saddam Hussein was the only world leader apart from Taliban leader Mullah Muhammed Omar who praised the 9/11 attacks.

Herp de Derp Blowback de derp.

Saddam, the secularist, was the USA's very own terrorist in the M.E. who's war with Iran was supported to the tune of several billion dollars.

See: Friedman, Alan. Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, Bantam Books, 1993.

The Americans would have been utterly irresponsible to leave a maniac like Hussein who had killed tens of thousands of Kurds with gas and other WMD in power if he had the unquantifiable potential to potentially supply Al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with weapons.

But it was okay for them to use them against the Iranians and the Kurds?

The ONLY reason we now know that there were NO stockpiles of WMD is the invasion in 2003. No other reason.

The ends do not justify the means. Nor were they the goal. Nor were they legal.

As for the rest of your post - don't support evil men with billions of dollars worth of weapons and then expect him not to start turning against you the moment it suits your new interests.

Saddam was an utterly vile dictator (America, Britain, France and Russia all curried favour and supplied him with weapons in the 1980s because his enemy Iran was their enemy).

The same Iran whose democracy elected Govt. was toppled by the US/UK for having the audacity to attempt to nationalize it's oil industry for the betterment of it's people.

Millions of Iraqis have made their voices heard and a genuinely representative democratic system exists. Iraq has a long way to go and violence is still very high.

Absolute starry eyed necon spoon-fed shite.

One of the greatest benefactors of the fall of Saddam was one Muqtadr-al Sadr who's allied with the Iranians and in the event of any US Israel attack on Iran (The ultimate fantasy hit of the Neocons and strategic planners) has said he will fight the US and it's proxies in Iraq.

Iraq now is more of a threat to US strategic interests that ever it was due to this.

But without the overthrow in Iraq it is quite possible that the Arab Spring would not have occured in the form it has now.

Bull**** crystal balling. A favourite past-time of your if your previous history is anything to go by.

It is not just absurd to call Blair and Bush war criminals for overthrowing Saddam and reversing decades of shameful Western policy in the Middle East but its moral depravity.

Where's your proof that shameful western policy has been reversed? One of the first actions the US took was to privatise almost every facet of Iraqi society, this is illegal under international law. Little has changed.

Now once again I have to ask why do left wing activists who claim to support freedom on one hand rushed to oppose the removal of a fascist dictator?

What has left-wing got to do with anything? Wasn't Tony Blair Left wing? (Do you know that British Soldiers called the 2nd Iraq war Tony Blair's war) but you'd know better than soldiers wouldn't you?

The left today seems to think the greatest democracy on earth

Says who?

and the greatest military power on earth must act entirely selflessly or less leave dictators in their place! Total insanity!

It's not about spreading democracy. It geostrategic posturing. The M.E. and particularly Iran is the pivot point at the moment.

What a total waste of time trying to debate with blinkered ideologues like yourself is.

Get a proper reading list.

snafuk35

Sonics2k wrote: »

Can you read?

I said people here have no problem with a Dictator being over-thrown, but perhaps I should stoop down a few levels of intelligence and point out I meant from an ethical point of view.
I then gave you the reasons that U.S. gave for the war, which were complete lies.
I then showed you how the U.N itself declared the invasion to be illegal, and therefore technically a War Crime.

And if you want to talk about how good it is that the United States took down a horrible man and dictator (which he was), why don't we discuss the numerous Dictator's the U.S. currently supports world wide, especially the ones in South America.

Would it be a greater evil to leave Saddam in power or a lesser evil to have an imperialist America overthrow him?

Nobody else was going to overthrow Saddam except the US. The Russians and Chinese and European did not care less one way or another. They didn't want to know.

The Americans were motivated primarily by economic and strategic reasons due to OIL but would you prefer that the Iraqi people continued to live under tyranny?

You live in free country and enjoy freedom that your ancestors who were serfs and slave could only dream of. By opposing military action in Iraq would de facto deny Iraqis the chance of freedom in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.

I think the Arabs are getting a reasonable good deal out of the Arab Spring - America and its allies assist rebels to overthrow dictators and in return for a level of freedom and democracy, the west can get access to oil.
Win/Win.

I think that's a very good deal indeed compared to Western or Russian or Chinese puppet dictators ruling them and crushing their aspirations.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

If America had intervened in Rwanda and lost of thousands of troops like they did in Iraq the bleeding heart liberals who were screaming at them to do something would start calling it an imperialist war and another Vietnam.

In 1993 American intervened in Somalia and 18 soldiers were killed during a botched mission and the famine in the country was forgotten. The left just wanted America to pull out and to hell with the Somalis.

Today Somalia is worse than ever and Obama or possible some other President will have to send in troops to stablise it in some way.

There is no comparison between iraq and rwanda...

Had they really wanted to overthrow saddam... for the sake of the people or whatever you wish to believe they would have done so in 91

Vietnam... america set out to stop the spread the of communism and failed in the process killing anywhere between 2 and 4 million civillans.

How do you see them stabilizing it??.... using force to install their own form of democracy to a country that will not accept it?? with a leader that is loyal to america.

Eventually they will pull out of afghanistan as well... what will they have achieved?... nothing.. just the russians and afghanistan will go back to teh way it always was.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

Would it be a greater evil to leave Saddam in power or a lesser evil to have an imperialist America overthrow him?

Nobody else was going to overthrow Saddam except the US. The Russians and Chinese and European did not care less one way or another. They didn't want to know.

The Americans were motivated primarily by economic and strategic reasons due to OIL but would you prefer that the Iraqi people continued to live under tyranny?

You live in free country and enjoy freedom that your ancestors who were serfs and slave could only dream of. By opposing military action in Iraq would de facto deny Iraqis the chance of freedom in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.

I think the Arabs are getting a reasonable good deal out of the Arab Spring - America and its allies assist rebels to overthrow dictators and in return for a level of freedom and democracy, the west can get access to oil.
Win/Win.

I think that's a very good deal indeed compared to Western or Russian or Chinese puppet dictators ruling them and crushing their aspirations.

And when the middle east runs out of oil will america "stick up " for their freedoms then?

Seaneh

snafuk35 wrote: »

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!

weisses wrote: »

Al-Qaeda was not even in Iraq before the US invaded ... So much ignorance

snafuk35 wrote: »

Have you never heard of Musab Al-Zarqawi? Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi members of Al-Qaeda and jihadists from around the world were already preparing for jihad before the invasion of Iraq.

weisses wrote: »

Saddam would never had allowed Al-Qaeda in Iraq ...

Al-Qeada doesn't ****ing exist. IT never has and never will.

It was invented by the FBI because they had to tie Bin Laden to a criminal organisation to try him under RICO laws after the bombings in Kenya in the late 90's.

Zebra3

snafuk35 wrote: »

Would it be a greater evil to leave Saddam in power or a lesser evil to have an imperialist America overthrow him?

Nobody else was going to overthrow Saddam except the US. The Russians and Chinese and European did not care less one way or another. They didn't want to know.

The Americans were motivated primarily by economic and strategic reasons due to OIL but would you prefer that the Iraqi people continued to live under tyranny?

You live in free country and enjoy freedom that your ancestors who were serfs and slave could only dream of. By opposing military action in Iraq would de facto deny Iraqis the chance of freedom in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.

I think the Arabs are getting a reasonable good deal out of the Arab Spring - America and its allies assist rebels to overthrow dictators and in return for a level of freedom and democracy, the west can get access to oil.
Win/Win.

I think that's a very good deal indeed compared to Western or Russian or Chinese puppet dictators ruling them and crushing their aspirations.

You deluded or wumming?

The Americans put Saddam in power.

Everyone agrees he was an evil bastar*.

Amazing how terrified the Americans are now of democracy in the ME.

They were appauled at the thought of their dictator in Egypt being overthrown earlier this year. And they are terrified about the people of Iraq voting in a pro-Iranian government. Look at what happened to some of the poorest people in the world (those in Gaza) when they democratically voted for Hamas.

They have no interest in the people of Palestine having independence and throwing of the yoke of zionist occupation/oppresion.

Now that Ireland is basically a Vichy collaborationist German occupied state will you support a US invasion that frees us if it kills 100,000 people?

snafuk35

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Iraqi defectors are now the high water mark of intelligence standards? Weren't most of them discredited? No ulterior motives on the part of these defectors possible? LOL.

If I was an Iraqi defector of course I would lie my bum off to get Saddam overthrown! It worked didn't it! The Americans got their excuse to go in and in return Iraqis got a chance a carving out a new Iraq.

But it was okay for them to use them against the Iranians and the Kurds?

No.

The ends do not justify the means. Nor were they the goal. Nor were they legal.

I live in the real world. Irish freedom was won by brute force and an alliance with Germany who supplied weapons for the 1916 rebels.

As for the rest of your post - don't support evil men with billions of dollars worth of weapons and then expect him not to start turning against you the moment it suits your new interests.

I absolutely agree with you.

The same Iran whose democracy elected Govt. was toppled by the US/UK for having the audacity to attempt to nationalize it's oil industry for the betterment of it's people.

Doesn't that demonstrate the wisdom of overthrowing dictators and instead replacing those regimes with democracies?

One of the greatest benefactors of the fall of Saddam was one Muqtadr-al Sadr who's allied with the Iranians and in the event of any US Israel attack on Iran (The ultimate fantasy hit of the Neocons and strategic planners) has said he will fight the US and it's proxies in Iraq.

The overthrow of the Iranian regime is supported by millions of Iranians in case you missed those massive protests which were crushed by brute force.

Iranian democratic opposition groups should be supplied with weapons and NATO airstrikes should be used to shatter the Iranian military and security forces just like the strategy that worked in Libya.

If Iran's regime falls Al-Sadr will wither on the vine.

It's not about spreading democracy. It geostrategic posturing. The M.E. and particularly Iran is the pivot point at the moment.

And don't you think Arabs would be stupid not to enthusiastically overthrow their dictators as they are doing at the moment. The Arabs don't give a damn what America wants. They are glad to out form under dictators.

What a total waste of time trying to debate with blinkered ideologues like yourself is.

As far as I can see your opposition to America means that you are indifferent to the fate of the people of the M.E. who could benefit hugely from the self-interest foreign policy of the Americans.

America are thugs but if Ireland was under a dictatorship and America want to seize our potential gas and oil supplies, I would be prepared to make a bargain with the devil if they would overthrow the dictatorship.

That is clearly the choice the Arabs have made.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

I think that's a very good deal indeed compared to Western or Russian or Chinese puppet dictators ruling them and crushing their aspirations.

You say that as if the US never did anything like that. Hilarious!

twinytwo

Snafuk35....

You do realise that this beloved democracy you speak of dosent exist anymore??

It is an idea used by those in power to make us think we have a choice.

For democracy to work you need honest men. Unfortunately they all but died out a long time ago.

snafuk35

The Americans put Saddam in power.

But yet you oppose his overthrow? Isn't that a totally contradictory position? Surely if the Americans put him in power it is their responsibility to overthrow him?

Everyone agrees he was an evil bastar*.

So why was there a problem about taking him out?

Amazing how terrified the Americans are now of democracy in the ME.

Good. I hope they are. Good for the Arabs. They will be in a stronger position if they are democracies rather than autocrats.

They were appauled at the thought of their dictator in Egypt being overthrown earlier this year. And they are terrified about the people of Iraq voting in a pro-Iranian government. Look at what happened to some of the poorest people in the world (those in Gaza) when they democratically voted for Hamas.

I agree. I want all of these countries to be democracies and not to be ruled by any world power by proxy.

They have no interest in the people of Palestine having independence and throwing of th eyoke of zionist occupation/oppresion.

I agree.

Now that Ireland is basically a Vichy collaborationist German occupied state will you support a US invasion that frees us if it kills 100,000 people?

We have freedom and democracy in this country. You and I are in no fear of arrest, torture and execution as people were in Vichy France. So that comparison between Ireland and Vichy France is baloney.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

But yet you oppose his overthrow? Isn't that a totally contradictory position? Surely if the Americans put him in power it is their responsibility to overthrow him?



So why was there a problem about taking him out?



Good. I hope they are. Good for the Arabs. They will be in a stronger position if they are democracies rather than autocrats.



I agree. I want all of these countries to be democracies and not to be ruled by any world power by proxy.



I agree.



We have freedom and democracy in this country. You and I are in no fear of arrest, torture and execution as people were in Vichy France. So that comparison between Ireland and Vichy France is baloney.

do you actually believe that?

snafuk35

twinytwo wrote: »

Snafuk35....

You do realise that this beloved democracy you speak of dosent exist anymore??

It is an idea used by those in power to make us think we have a choice.

For democracy to work you need honest men. Unfortunately they all but died out a long time ago.

There never were honest men.
Politics is about the art of the possible.
The democracy we have is a damn sight better than what we had before when the majority of Irish lived in mud cabins, survived on spuds or starved and were bowing and scraping to landlords. If my ancestors saw the country now even on its knees at the moment they would think they were in heaven.
Democracy does not stand still either.
It can go backward or it can be made better.
But not through dreaming or waiting for a lily white to come along to help us.
You use the dishonest men who are in power now for our own ends.
We have our agenda and we can use them the same time they use us.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

There never were honest men.
Politics is about the art of the possible.
The democracy we have is a damn sight better than what we had before when the majority of Irish lived in mud cabins, survived on spuds or starved and were bowing and scraping to landlords. If my ancestors saw the country now even on its knees at the moment they would think they were in heaven.
Democracy does not stand still either.
It can go backward or it can be made better.
But not through dreaming or waiting for a lily white to come along to help us.
You use the dishonest men who are in power now for our own ends.
We have our agenda and we can use them the same time they use us.

Im interested to see how you would plan on achieving this??...

there were honest men once... when reputation, honour and loyality ment something.

snafuk35

twinytwo wrote: »

do you actually believe that?

The democracy and freedom we have is imperfect and for the homeless and the poor it might as well not exist. That should change. But for the majority it exists but the rich always wish it would vanish. It is fragile and is always in danger of destruction. I live in the real world. Absolute perfection does not exist.

Iraqis and Arabs live in the real world. They know America can be used and when the dictators are gone they will try to chart their own course.

Zebra3

So which country is allowed to invade the US following their brutal put down of the pro-democracy demonstrations by America's Gestapoesque thugs?

omega666

snafuk35 wrote: »

I live in the real world. Irish freedom was won by brute force and an alliance with Germany who supplied weapons for the 1916 rebels.


Are you really trying to compare the IRB importing 1000 rifles from germany nearly 100 years ago with Invading a country with 250,000 soldiers, planes, tanks, ships resulting in a couple of hundred thousand civilians dead and nearly 10 years later the country in a bigger mess than when it started!!

Are you sure your living in the real world?

snafuk35

twinytwo wrote: »

Im interested to see how you would plan on achieving this??...

there were honest men once... when reputation, honour and loyality ment something.

That is nostalgic rubbish.

There never was a state of nature or a Garden of Eden.

In the real world, the strong always rule but the weak can make allies with the strong and turn them on each other. The strong are increasingly dependent on the support of the weak so much so that increasingly the roles are reversed. The only reason we have democracies and freedoms is because generations before us suffered and died.

Today the left can pontificate about human rights and never hear a shot fired in anger. Working class toughs are recruited to fight and created the bubble of security in which middle class kids in colleges paid for by Daddy and Mammy can debate the rights and wrongs of conflicts that they will never have to experience.

In Iraq, Libya and other countries politics is not abstract. It is life or death.
America for selfish reasons is overthrowing brutal regimes. The Arabs will take advantage. They can worry about the rights and wrongs later.

They will leave it to well fed spoilt middle class kids in universities to that for them!

stoneill

I almost agree with snafuk35 - almost.
The US selectivity of which dictator will we get rid of and which will we leave alone smacks of corporate greed and oil money.
Comparing struggles for Independence, civil war and domestic internal uprisings to what can only be described as US colonialism of oil rich countries is not comparing like with like.
Iraq after the overthrow is much much worse off than it was when under a dictatorship. Undoubtedly the world is much better off with Saddam Hussein - however if you do want to eradicate dictators, what replaces it should be an inclusive democratic system. Not a power vacuum of tribal leaders all vying and jockeying for political positions. Anyway Halliburton Corp. is much better off.

The US and UK went into Iraq as they knew that Iraq did not have WMD's, they very reason why they did not invade North Korea, as they knew that N. Korea does have WMD's and are not afraid to use them.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

If I was an Iraqi defector of course I would lie my bum off to get Saddam overthrown! It worked didn't it! The Americans got their excuse to go in and in return Iraqis got a chance a carving out a new Iraq.

You see you speak as if Saddam was some sort of monolithic dictator whose family would rule for a thousand years. There are many ways of creating dissent. The Iraq war was about power projection. The Neocon doctrine of not being ashamed to use US power when it came to spreading liberal ideals.

There was one problem. Democracy was not the goal. If democracy, truth and transparency were to be respected then Iraq II would never have happened in the first place because the people of the US would never have sent their sons and daughters out there to die in the desert. Similarly with the UK, the people of which had their democratic will ignored (remember the mass marches?)

These people will deliberately lie to us to send our children to far away wars in a bloodied attempt to express their ill-though out fantasies of glory.

I live in the real world. Irish freedom was won by brute force and an alliance with Germany who supplied weapons for the 1916 rebels.

The rising of 1916 was a bit of a disaster - the execution of the rebels by the British was what propelled the seeking of Irish self-determination.

Doesn't that demonstrate the wisdom of overthrowing dictators and instead replacing those regimes with democracies?

No. it just shows that if nations were a little consistent then 'we' may not get ourselves in these almighty quagmires.

The overthrow of the Iranian regime is supported by millions of Iranians in case you missed those massive protests which were crushed by brute force.

The numbers are disputed. There is consistency across the political divide that the Iranians want nuclear power (and the ability to construct a bomb) and would you blame them after what happened in Iraq? Iran is being stifled by sanctions and there were many opportunities missed by the Bush... regime to form alliances after 9/11.

Iranian democratic opposition groups should be supplied with weapons and NATO airstrikes should be used to shatter the Iranian military and security forces just like the strategy that worked in Libya.

Why don't you man up and go out their and help the Iranians then? Just don't send the sons and daughters of people who have no truck with the Iranians.

If Iran's regime falls Al-Sadr will wither on the vine.

Optimistic to say the least.

And don't you think Arabs would be stupid not to enthusiastically overthrow their dictators as they are doing at the moment. The Arabs don't give a damn what America wants. They are glad to out form under dictators.

Why is the Egyptian regime still intact? You can be sure that there are many forces in the US and Israel who don't want democracy in Egypt. I will not hold my breath on that count.

As far as I can see your opposition to America means that you are indifferent to the fate of the people of the M.E.

I don't have opposition to the concept of America. I am against powerfull interest groups such as the discredited Neocons who are only to happy to send young men and women to the other side of the planet to be torn to shreds to play out their fantasies of glory.

snafuk35

omega666 wrote: »

snafuk35 wrote: »

I live in the real world. Irish freedom was won by brute force and an alliance with Germany who supplied weapons for the 1916 rebels.


Are you really trying to compare the IRB importing 1000 rifles from germany nearly 100 years ago with Invading a country with 250,000 soldiers, planes, tanks, ships resulting in a couple of hundred thousand civilians dead and nearly 10 years later the country in a bigger mess than when it started!!

Are you sure your living in the real world?

A democratic constitution, democratic parliamentary, democratic elections, independent judiciary and human rights laws are infinitely better than the whim of a psychotic maniac.

Iraq is a mess but its people can chart their course now. They are taking full advantage of what they have and can build on that.

twinytwo

snafuk35 wrote: »

That is nostalgic rubbish.

There never was a state of nature or a Garden of Eden.

In the real world, the strong always rule but the weak can make allies with the strong and turn them on each other. The strong are increasingly dependent on the support of the weak so much so that increasingly the roles are reversed. The only reason we have democracies and freedoms is because generations before us suffered and died.

Today the left can pontificate about human rights and never hear a shot fired in anger. Working class toughs are recruited to fight and created the bubble of security in which middle class kids in colleges paid for by Daddy and Mammy can debate the rights and wrongs of conflicts that they will never have to experience.

In Iraq, Libya and other countries politics is not abstract. It is life or death.
America for selfish reasons is overthrowing brutal regimes. The Arabs will take advantage. They can worry about the rights and wrongs later.

They will leave it to well fed spoilt middle class kids in universities to that for them!

Who ever mentioned a perfect world??

You will find that it is not "nostalgic rubbish" but fact

You actually have no idea what you are talking about.... are you alright in the head?

Ben Hadad

Relax guys, Snafuk is just a 1%er. He makes up the 1% of people who were born without a moral conscience. It's not his fault, he was born that way, and there is nothing you can say that will fix this genetic defect he has from birth. Just nod and condescendingly agree with him and he will go away. We 99% have better things to be doing.

snafuk35

Chuck Stone wrote: »

snafuk35 wrote: »

You see you speak as if Saddam was some sort of monolithic dictator whose family would rule for a thousand years. There are many ways of creating dissent. The Iraq war was about power projection.

So you would have said to the Iraq 'you are on your own?'

The Neocon doctrine of not being ashamed to use US power when it came to spreading liberal ideals.

A good theory isn't it?

There was one problem. Democracy was not the goal. If democracy, truth and transparency were to be respected then Iraq II would never have happened in the first place because the people of the US would never have sent their sons and daughters out there to die in the desert. Similarly with the UK, the people of which had their democratic will ignored (remember the mass marches?)

And the prospect of Iraqi freedom means nothing to you?

These people will deliberately lie to us to send our children to far away wars in a bloodied attempt to express their ill-though out fantasies of glory.

For God's sake! What do you think rulers have done since the world began???

The rising of 1916 was a bit of a disaster - the execution of the rebels by the British was what propelled the seeking of Irish self-determination.

That was not an excuse not to try!

No. it just shows that if nations were a little consistent then 'we' may not get ourselves in these almighty quagmires.

When have nations ever been consistent?

The numbers are disputed.

So let dispute them then? The region needs a big dispute doesn't it or nothing will ever change?

There is consistency across the political divide that the Iranians want nuclear power (and the ability to construct a bomb) and would you blame them after what happened in Iraq? Iran is being stifled by sanctions and there were many opportunities missed by the Bush... regime to form alliances after 9/11.

Do you feel safe with Christian lunatics armed with nukes?

So why would you feel secure with Islamic lunatics armed with nukes?

Why don't you man up and go out their and help the Iranians then? Just don't send the sons and daughters of people who have no truck with the Iranians.

Armies are made up of sons and daughters who have no truck with the sons and daughters of their enemies in other armies. But if the fate of nations are at stake then human life comes secondary to the future and who controls it.
Childish fantasies about world peace do not suffice in a violent world.

Optimistic to say the least.

You have to live in hope. What else is there?

Why is the Egyptian regime still intact? You can be sure that there are many forces in the US and Israel who don't want democracy in Egypt. I will not hold my breath on that count.

The Egyptian people seem determined to change things.

I don't have opposition to the concept of America. I am against powerfull interest groups such as the discredited Neocons who are only to happy to send young men and women to the other side of the planet to be torn to shreds to play out their fantasies of glory.

If young men and women are sent to overthrow dictators and if they die and others can benefit from it - Iraqis, Libyans, perhaps the Iranian people, then I am in favour of it. If the American bankrupt themselves in the process and oppressed people are freed then why the hell not?:D

Daithi 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0N7JM3wZk

snafuk35

Daithi 1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0N7JM3wZk

I love Lady Gaga.

Only in a free democratic society with freedom of expression, freedom of religion or freedom from religion, individual liberties, secular values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could a person as wonderful as Lady Gaga exist.

In Saddam's Iraq, the equivalent of Lady Gaga would have been tortured and killed.

Freedom should be projected throughout all the world. If it means war then so be it.

The rich will fight for power but if we can manipulate into see their interests overlapping with oppressed people - they can see something in it for them - then we are onto a winner.

The Iraqis now have democratic future thank to the oil greed of America. win/win

Ben Hadad

Daithi 1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0N7JM3wZk

Snafuk we know your views on American foreign policy, but more importantly what's your view on Lady Gaga's song titled "Born this way"?

SirDelboy18

Do you feel comfortable living in a world where America does what it likes? When they directly disobey the only thing resembling an international governing body? When they fabricate evidence and stories with the goal of self profit? To control the leadership of external countries as they see fit?

The same thing can be seen through out their history. Joseph Mobutu is their best friend while communism is prevalent, yet when its threat is considerably diluted he is suddenly a bad guy? He sauntered over to the white house whenever he felt like it before the end of the cold war, yet almost immediately afterwards they decided they didn't like him and denied him a visa.

snafuk35

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Snafuk we know your views on American foreign policy, but more importantly what's your view on Lady Gaga's song titled "Born this way"?

I love it. I'm a really big fan. Great song.

Now can we get back on topic?

snafuk35

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Do you feel comfortable living in a world where America does what it likes? When they directly disobey the only thing resembling an international governing body? When they fabricate evidence and stories with the goal of self profit? To control the leadership of external countries as they see fit?

If international law means that dictators are left untouched. Then I saw to hell with the law.

The same thing can be seen through out their history. Joseph Mobutu is their best friend while communism is prevalent, yet when its threat is considerably diluted he is suddenly a bad guy? He sauntered over to the white house whenever he felt like it before the end of the cold war, yet almost immediately afterwards they decided they didn't like him and denied him a visa.

Aint life a motherf*?

SirDelboy18

snafuk35 wrote: »

If international law means that dictators are left untouched. Then I saw to hell with the law.

But the whole point is that they have supported dictators throughout history? With many many examples.

I'm not really sure that you have any logical arguement here

RichieC

Suharto as well.. killed up to a million people. senior Bush 1 official: Our kinda guy.. which was trumpeted by the "liberal" New York Times.

great bunch of lads.

The UN Security Council had a unanimous vote for Indonesia to stop its invasion and to withdraw immediately from East Timor’s borders, and was blocked by the United States from imposing any economic sanctions any way of enforcing this mandate. Two days before the invasion of Dili and subsequent annexation, U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met President Suharto in Jakarta where Ford made it clear that “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.” Kissinger added: “It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly [because] the use of US-made arms could create problems.

RichieC

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

snafuk35 wrote: »

But the whole point is that they have supported dictators throughout history? With many many examples.

I'm not really sure that you have any logical arguement here

They still support the brutal Saudi royal house. and Syria... hardly a democracy.

storker

Genocide? What genocide?

Stork

Ben Hadad

snafuk35 wrote: »

I love it. I'm a really big fan. Great song.

Now can we get back on topic?

Ok lets. I agree with everything you say. These aren't the drones we are looking for.

America caused the Arab spring, even though they have been supporting and propping these governments for decades selling billions of Yuans sorry I mean dollars, in arms sales as recently as two years ago.

The millions of dead Iraqis and Aghanis are thanking their lucky stars in heaven that the American army decided to regime change their governments.

International laws are obviously mistaken if there was no legal basis for waging the Iraqi war.

Morality comes second to the fanatical spread of democracy.

They hate our freedoms, is beginning to remind me of the "they took our jobs" line from South Park. But it's so so true. What's interesting from a sociological point of view is how all these freedom hating people are the first humans in the history of our race not to abide by Maslows hierarchy of needs. No QED for you Mr. Maslow.

These aren't the drones we are looking for.

Chuck Stone

snafuk35 wrote: »

So you would have said to the Iraq 'you are on your own?'

If it meant me sending someone I loved over there to fight then I would have thought of alternatives that didn't involve them being blown to pieces.

A good theory isn't it?

Theories are one thing and realities are another, and no, I don't think it was a good theory.

And the prospect of Iraqi freedom means nothing to you?

Like charity, freedom begins at home. I would love if Iraq would become a wonderful free country - I just don't think that there are too many other who hold the same view.

For God's sake! What do you think rulers have done since the world began???

Been murdering bastards? I'd prefer a leader or representative or nobody at all if it meant mass slaughter was the cost of having a ruler.

When have nations ever been consistent?

The Swiss? The Swedish?

Do you feel safe with Christian lunatics armed with nukes?

Not particularly, no.

So why would you feel secure with Islamic lunatics armed with nukes?

M.A.D.

Armies are made up of sons and daughters who have no truck with the sons and daughters of their enemies in other armies. But if the fate of nations are at stake then human life comes secondary to the future and who controls it.

I'm not a pacifist. I believe people and groups of people have the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary.

Childish fantasies about world peace do not suffice in a violent world

And boy soldier fantasies are no better.

Violence begets violence.

You have to live in hope. What else is there?

Patience and playing it smart.

Take the P.R. of China - how long do you think that authoritarian regime has left there? 20/30 years? The authoritarian government can't last because people have access to information and are increasing in wealth and will seek self-determination.

The mass movement of the people of GDR smashed down the Berlin wall. The momentum of the BDS movement ended S. African aparthied.

There are plenty of examples of reasonably peaceful change if people just care to look.

The Egyptian people seem determined to change things.

I wish the best for them but I'm not optimistic due to the Gaza situation and the strategic importance of the Suez canal to others.

If young men and women are sent to overthrow dictators and if they die and others can benefit from it - Iraqis, Libyans, perhaps the Iranian people, then I am in favour of it.

Get your rifle and helmet and get out there then. Turn off the lights and put the cat out while your leaving.

If the American bankrupt themselves in the process and oppressed people are freed then why the hell not?

It would be better to have a non-bankrupt America with a sensible foreign policy that doesn't antagonize. I'd rather take my chances with the US than the Russians and Chinese.

Cú Giobach

snafuk35 wrote: »

The left today seems to think the greatest democracy on earth and the greatest military power on earth must act entirely selflessly or less leave dictators in their place! Total insanity!

WTF

Their two party system both of which are ultimately controlled by the same corporations makes a mockery of the word democracy. This "greatest democracy" mantra is usually only spouted by quite naive Americans who don't have a clue about the systems of government in other countries, many of which have real (or as good as you can realistically get) democracies.

Fratton Fred

Australia and Poland get off very lightly. Were their leaders "Tried" for war crimes as well?

smash

I get the feeling there'll be a press release stating that Malaysia is suddenly hiding WMD's.

sbsquarepants

snafuk35 wrote: »

Since when is it a war crime to use military force to overthrow dictators and kill terrorists and bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

It was against international law to overthrow Saddam Hussein??

Never mind that the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq were caused by Al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia terrorists bombing and beheading and shooting people deliberately!
.

Funnily enough, they didn't care much about these things when Saddam was keeping the Iranians in check for them. The don't care much about bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Qatar, or any number of other despotic regimes. Why not? Because they keep the cheap oil flowing and everyone with an ounce of common sense, knows that this whole fiasco - the countless deaths, probably over a million at this stage, were all for OIL. Oil makes the world go around, not democracy!
When you see the US threaten to invade China unless they hand back Tibet, then you can claim they are putting themselves in harms way for anything as noble as democracy or protection of the oppressed. Untill then, they're just heavily armed bullies with an obnoxious disregard for human life.
Drag your head out of your arse for a minute and you'll realise this - the evidence is overwhelming!