Blairs war.

Sparks

Sorry Quantum, I don't buy it. Saying that Hussein was the worst dictator at the time is ignoring places like Zimbabwe, Uzebekistan, Afghanistan (which, despite the official line, is about as peaceful as belfast in the bad old days during marching season).
And saying that both sides of the argument are even is the same tactic being employed by creationists in Kansas - just because there are two sides, doesn't meant they're of equal merit. The data and evidence is in on most of the Iraq invasion; and frankly, loathe him as you do, Galloway was correct.

Quantum

Sparks wrote:

Sorry Quantum, I don't buy it. Saying that Hussein was the worst dictator at the time is ignoring places like Zimbabwe, Uzebekistan, Afghanistan (which, despite the official line, is about as peaceful as belfast in the bad old days during marching season). And saying that both sides of the argument are even is the same tactic being employed by creationists in Kansas - just because there are two sides, doesn't meant they're of equal merit. The data and evidence is in on most of the Iraq invasion; and frankly, loathe him as you do, Galloway was correct.

I don't agree. And I don't expect you to buy it. You may not respect people who disagree with you, I do. I'm afraid this is part of life you just have to get used to. In my opinion you are completely wrong. He was the worst, he was working hard to get the bomb, the UN confirmed that, and he was very likely to use it as he had used WMD before. The fact that he got rid of the stuff just in time and the fact that the intelligence communities were fooled by him and gave Bush and Blair inaccurate data doesn't change that for me. It was a good thing to liberate his people and I believe we should do the same anywhere else there is a similar feasible opportunity to do so. Allowing human beings to suffer under the heel of brutal mass murdering dictators is immoral in my opinion and where we get an opportunity we should liberate them, everywhere.

Sparks

he was working hard to get the bomb, the UN confirmed that

Actually, they didn't. Even those who invaded Iraq couldn't do more than dig up one or two parts from under a rose bush that could, if added to a few million other bits, be used as part of a plant that might make the material you need for a nuclear device, assuming he could obtain the impure material as well, and the design for the device, and the expertise to assemble it, and... well, you get the idea.

The fact that he got rid of the stuff just in time

All evidence shows that "just in time" means "a decade ago"...

It was a good thing to liberate his people

Killing a hundred thousand of them and selling off their businesses, utilities, public assets and natural resources, on the other hand....

Allowing human beings to suffer under the heel of brutal mass murdering dictators is immoral in my opinion and where we get an opportunity we should liberate them, everywhere.

Then why are Pakistan (a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and Uzebekistan (a dictatorship where the dictator boils people alive) part of the "good guys" coalition instead of on it's target list? And why is Kuwait also on the list, and the other arabic monarchies where "human rights" is a rather funny foreign custom?

Quantum

Sparks wrote:

Actually, they didn't. Even those who invaded Iraq couldn't do more than dig up one or two parts from under a rose bush that could, if added to a few million other bits, be used as part of a plant that might make the material you need for a nuclear device, assuming he could obtain the impure material as well, and the design for the device, and the expertise to assemble it, and... well, you get the idea.

Then why did the UN have cameras there for years and say that they believed that he had a nuclear and WMD program long before the war ? I believe he ditched them into Syria a year or so before the war and would have started again if he wasn't overthrown.

Killing a hundred thousand of them and selling off their businesses, utilities, public assets and natural resources, on the other hand....

None of which I accept has been done.

Then why are Pakistan (a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and Uzebekistan (a dictatorship where the dictator boils people alive) part of the "good guys" coalition instead of on it's target list?

I don't acept that either are on the good guy list. And it would be stupid to try to liberate Uzbekistan when it would almost certainly result in a war with Russia, and another Islamic State to try to destroy the west. Pakistan is clearly needed, and it's people would make things a LOT worse for our way of life if they overthrew their dictator, not to mention that it has the bomb... :rolleyes: .
It's not wrong to look after our very existence and way of life. Some facts of life have to be faced.

And why is Kuwait also on the list, and the other arabic monarchies where "human rights" is a rather funny foreign custom?

Please post this 'list'.... I haven't seen it anywhere.
Dont you realise that if the people of these states overthrew their monarchies, then the first thing they would do is form Islamic States, get the bomb and probably drop it on Israel (not that I support Israeli policies) and fund the Al Queda to try to destroy the West ? I wouldn't be interested in taking that chance.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

Then why did the UN have cameras there for years and say that they believed that he had a nuclear and WMD program long before the war ?

Methinks that you either don't understand, are confusing, or misrepresenting the meaning of the word program.

To be more explicit: A research program into nuclear weapons is not a weapon.

I believe he ditched them into Syria a year or so before the war

Which "them"? The weapons that the UN, the US, and anyone else who's actualyl had a look has concluded didn't exist? Or the research programs (which are a collection of people and information, neither of which has actually disappeared).

None of which I accept has been done.

Handy. You don't accept the UN's findings about the weapons. You don't accept teh US findings about teh weapons. You don't accept the fact of the selling off of public assets.

But wait. There's more.

I don't acept that either are on the good guy list.

Have you read the Uzbekistan thread thats currently open? What, exactly, do you not accept? The public statements of US officials? The publically verifiable relations between the US and Uzbekistan?

Maybe you don't accept that Pakistan is now one of the good guys either, even though its been removed from teh list of the Axis of Evil, and frequently referenced by Bush as a strategic ally and partner in the region?

As a matter of interest....the stuff you think is true instead of all these verifiable facts that you don't accept. Is it just unfounded opinion, or have you anything to base it on?

It's not wrong to look after our very existence and way of life. Some facts of life have to be faced.

Some facts have to be faced, but the inconvenient ones can be ignored by simply saying "I don't accept that" ?

Dont you realise that if the people of these states overthrew their monarchies, then the first thing they would do is form Islamic States,

Don't you realise that if they want an Islamic State, then democracy would only result in them deciding democratically that they should have one?

It would seem that the only conclusion of this logic is that we are better off ensuring that they get kept firmly under heel by despots, to ensure that they can never get the freedom we purport to hold above all else, lest they make our lives a little less cushy by getting it and using it in a manner we don't like.

You do understand that "freedom only when its stuff that I approve of" is no freedom at all? Thats the "freedom" these people currently have under their despots, the "freedom" that the Americans and co rescued the Iraqis and the Afghanistanis from.

I wouldn't be interested in taking that chance.

That much is abundantly clear....
jc

bonkey

Please post this 'list'.... I haven't seen it anywhere

I believe they called it the Coalition of the Willing. I'm somewhat surprised you haven't heard of it.

jc

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Methinks that you either don't understand, are confusing, or misrepresenting the meaning of the word program.

Then you would be wrong.

To be more explicit: A research program into nuclear weapons is not a weapon.

I never said he had a weapon. I said he hada program and an intent. Proved by the UN placing cameras and monitoring it.

Which "them"? The weapons that the UN, the US, and anyone else who's actualyl had a look has concluded didn't exist? Or the research programs (which are a collection of people and information, neither of which has actually disappeared).

The program that the UN confirmed had been in place before the war period.

Handy. You don't accept the UN's findings about the weapons. You don't accept teh US findings about teh weapons. You don't accept the fact of the selling off of public assets.

I accept the UN finding that he had a program. I accept the UN finding that the weapons and program had then disappeared. I accept the fact that the Iraqi interum government has privatised a lot of industries in an excellent program to develop theri coutry.

Have you read the Uzbekistan thread thats currently open? What, exactly, do you not accept? The public statements of US officials? The publically verifiable relations between the US and Uzbekistan?

Having relations doesn't mean support or that they are 'good guys'. Ireland has 'relations' with lots of despicable regimes.

Maybe you don't accept that Pakistan is now one of the good guys either, even though its been removed from teh list of the Axis of Evil, and frequently referenced by Bush as a strategic ally and partner in the region?

They are a partner of convenience. And Bush (who I am NOT a supporter) is absolutely right to partner with in the war against the Islamic Terrorists. The world is not a kindergarden party. Sometimes you have to ally with nasty people against more nasty people and I support that. If Pakistan were democratic it would become a home base for Bin Laden and Al Queda and he would have the bomb in a month.

As a matter of interest....the stuff you think is true instead of all these verifiable facts that you don't accept. Is it just unfounded opinion, or have you anything to base it on?

Your argument appears to be that everything you believe is a fact and everything someone who disagrees with is nonsense. I don't accept them as facts, only opinions.

Some facts have to be faced, but the inconvenient ones can be ignored by simply saying "I don't accept that" ?

I agree.

Don't you realise that if they want an Islamic State, then democracy would only result in them deciding democratically that they should have one?

That doesn't mean we should support or encourage it when that will result in an even greater threat to our lives and way of life.

It would seem that the only conclusion of this logic is that we are better off ensuring that they get kept firmly under heel by despots, to ensure that they can never get the freedom we purport to hold above all else, lest they make our lives a little less cushy by getting it and using it in a manner we don't like.

If you mean by less cushy, flying airplanes into us and slaughtering us in the thousands and in future by the million if they get the bomb - yes. For the sake of our very lives and way fo live it is better that they stay under a despicable dictator than change to a religious dictatorship, a Clepto-Theocracy.

You do understand that "freedom only when its stuff that I approve of" is no freedom at all? Thats the "freedom" these people currently have under their despots, the "freedom" that the Americans and co rescued the Iraqis and the Afghanistanis from.

Freedom to destroy us isn't a freedom I support.

And I would really appreciate if every reply to my posts that you disagree woth weren't so patronising. We have disagreed constructively elsewhere, I don't see the need for it.

Sparks

Quantum wrote:

I said he had a program and an intent.

And Ireland had a programme to send men to the moon as well. Doesn't mean that it was a credible threat to US supremacy in space, mind you...

Proved by the UN placing cameras and monitoring it.

I think you'll find that the UN weapons inspectors were not there to monitor weapons or weapon programmes, but to confirm that said weapons and programmes were destroyed or decommissioned or wound up. Which they were. And which was proven through evidence submitted from agents in the field through the UN. And which has now been confirmed by the Americans, who had most to gain by finding any trace of a weapon or weapons programme. Which they did not do, because they'd been dissassembled or destroyed in the preceding decade.

The program that the UN confirmed had been in place before the war period.

The UN confirmed no such thing. In fact, it was the UN inspectors under Blix who were busily saying to anyone who'd listen that it was highly unlikely that such weapons existed and that if given a matter of a month or so, they could prove it without a war; but desert warfare has a timetable (weather and costs of maintaining a deployment), so of course they weren't listened to. Besides, this has been a highly profitable enterprise for those individuals who organised it, if not for the nation itself.

I accept the UN finding that he had a program.

But they didn't...

I accept the UN finding that the weapons and program had then disappeared.

But they didn't...

I accept the fact that the Iraqi interum government has privatised a lot of industries in an excellent program to develop theri coutry.

Illegally, and calling it an "excellent programme" is wrong because it's neither legal nor ethical, and in fact, it's not even working. The UK showed the world what privatisation does for a country - it damages the economy. And that was a mild form of privatisation - in Iraq, it's a Libertarian economic experiment that goes well beyond anything we've seen in any other nation. And if it goes kablooey and we see an economic freefall like we've never seen before? Well, who cares, sure they're the ones started the fight, right? :rolleyes:

Having relations doesn't mean support or that they are 'good guys'.

Of course, praising them as worthy allies would. Which, oddly enough, is what's been done...

They are a partner of convenience. And Bush (who I am NOT a supporter) is absolutely right to partner with in the war against the Islamic Terrorists. The world is not a kindergarden party. Sometimes you have to ally with nasty people against more nasty people and I support that.

There's a quote from Neitzche about looking into an abyss that you might want to look up...

If Pakistan were democratic it would become a home base for Bin Laden and Al Queda and he would have the bomb in a month.

So then why make Afghanistan (the next-door neighbour of Pakistan, and with an even worse security problem) a democracy by force? Why would Pakistan be a threat as a democracy, and not nearby India, who also have "the bomb"?

Your argument appears to be that everything you believe is a fact and everything someone who disagrees with is nonsense.

Funny you should say that...

If you mean by less cushy, flying airplanes into us and slaughtering us in the thousands and in future by the million if they get the bomb - yes.

So when are you going to call for large amounts of aid for Russia and former Soviet states to ensure their nuclear weapons aren't sold off under the counter? Or for Israel's nuclear arsenal to be officially recognised? Or for Saudia Arabia (whose citizens do the flying of the aeroplanes into us) to be invaded and conquered and a democracy installed?

For the sake of our very lives and way fo live it is better that they stay under a despicable dictator than change to a religious dictatorship, a Clepto-Theocracy.

And that is why they're flying aeroplanes into us and trying to kill us - because we have been supporting despicable dictators killing them for decades now...

And I would really appreciate if every reply to my posts that you disagree woth weren't so patronising. We have disagreed constructively elsewhere, I don't see the need for it.

Not to worry, we'll all get along much better after the pop.

Quantum

Sparks wrote:

And Ireland had a programme to send men to the moon as well. Doesn't mean that it was a credible threat to US supremacy in space, mind you...

Any program to develop the bomb by such a despotic regime is a threat to all of humanity.

But they didn't...(find a program)

Then why did they say they dismantled it ?

But they didn't...(find that the weapons and program had then disappeared.)

Then how come they didn't find anything ?

Illegally (privatise),

I believ that it was 100% legal and beneficial to the people of Iraq.

and calling it an "excellent programme" is wrong because it's neither legal nor ethical, and in fact, it's not even working. The UK showed the world what privatisation does for a country - it damages the economy.

The UK proved the transforming success of privatisation, as has Ireland. So much so that it has become mainstream political policy all around the world. But let's not go there here

Of course, praising them as worthy allies would. Which, oddly enough, is what's been done...

The world is a nasty place and always has been. There is such a thing as diplomacy and ireland indulges in it just as much as anyone else. Sometimes we have to say things we don't mean to get what we want. The US and EU felt for quite a while there that Uzbekistan was showing signs of some democratic reform and mixed with the help being able to place troops there after 11/9, I think it wasn't so bad saying a few questionable words about it.

There's a quote from Neitzche about looking into an abyss that you might want to look up...(allying with nasty people against nastier people)

Maybe so. But it doesn't contribute toward living in the real world of international terrorism. Your enemy's enemy can sometimes be a useful temporary ally. That's real life.

So then why make Afghanistan (the next-door neighbour of Pakistan, and with an even worse security problem) a democracy by force? Why would Pakistan be a threat as a democracy, and not nearby India, who also have "the bomb"?

I believe I have explained that several times. Liberating Iraq didn't risk an Islamic State. Pakistan would become such. India is already a democracy :rolleyes: .

So when are you going to call for large amounts of aid for Russia and former Soviet states to ensure their nuclear weapons aren't sold off under the counter?

That aid has already been given, and is being given.

Or for Israel's nuclear arsenal to be officially recognised?

You'll have to explain that one

Or for Saudia Arabia (whose citizens do the flying of the aeroplanes into us) to be invaded and conquered and a democracy installed?

I already said above that Saudi looks like it would become an Islamic State and be a major threat to the West. Don't you read my posts before launching ?

And that is why they're flying aeroplanes into us and trying to kill us - because we have been supporting despicable dictators killing them for decades now...

I just don't buy into this kind of thinking. "They hate us because we protect ourselves from them" stuff.

Not to worry, we'll all get along much better after the pop.

I might even agree... if I knew what that meant...

Sparks

Quantum wrote:

Any program to develop the bomb by such a despotic regime is a threat to all of humanity.

Unless it's a program with no hope of producing a bomb as an end product, of course.

Then why did they say they dismantled it ?

They didn't.

Then how come they didn't find anything ?

They weren't the ones searching after the war, and in the decade before the war, they observed the destruction of those weapons, so they knew there wasn't anything to find.

I believ that it was 100% legal and beneficial to the people of Iraq.

Your belief is incorrect and irrelevant to the legality of the situation.
A nation invading under the guise of a UN action cannot restructure the nation's economy like that. It's simply illegal, not to mention unethical and immoral.

The UK proved the transforming success of privatisation, as has Ireland.

Indeed, it's proven that it's a great idea for a small few who make the money from the sales, but that for the general public who paid for the infrastructure in the first place, it's a really bad idea, as well as for the economy in general.

The world is a nasty place and always has been. There is such a thing as diplomacy and ireland indulges in it just as much as anyone else.

The world is as we make it maybe a cliche, but it's a true one - the world is a nasty place not because of some random people who hate you, but because you've given those people a reason to hate you. Giving them more reasons isn't going to make the situation better. Or, to use another saying, you're in a hole. Stop digging.

Sometimes we have to say things we don't mean to get what we want.

We have a more succint description for that activity you know.

The US and EU felt for quite a while there that Uzbekistan was showing signs of some democratic reform

Ha! You mean they were monitoring the oil pipeline running from soviet oilfields through afghanistan and uzebekistan and figured that was worth more than a couple of people who noone in their constituency knew.

But it doesn't contribute toward living in the real world of international terrorism.

Yes, it does. It ensures that that world of terrorism will continue.

I believe I have explained that several times. Liberating Iraq didn't risk an Islamic State.

Keep telling yourself that while the largest party in Iraq is the Iranian party who've promised, cross their heart, not to institute a theocracy, and the second-largest is the Kurdish party who want to split off and form Kurdistan, which would immediately trigger war with Turkey...

India is already a democracy :rolleyes: .

So India, which is basicly India with a different state religion, and which is a geographical neighbour depending on how you look at Kashmir, is safe as a democracy, and so is Afghanistan, but something about Pakistan makes it unsafe as a democracy?

You'll have to explain that one

Israel's nuclear weapons are technically illegally held in contravention of various treaties, and they've ducked and defrauded IAEA inspections to get them. It's one rule for all, or no rules at all, don't forget.

I already said above that Saudi looks like it would become an Islamic State and be a major threat to the West. Don't you read my posts before launching ?

Pot calling the bread black there lad.

I just don't buy into this kind of thinking. "They hate us because we protect ourselves from them" stuff.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was "they hate us because we threw the first punch".

I might even agree... if I knew what that meant...

The pop refers to the emergence of your head into the light once more