War in Iraq - What's it about list?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You forgot to mention the rioting that the destruction of the Italian 8th army in Russia caused - proving that the Italians were both opposed to war and to the government - if there had not been internal dissent, Italy would never have surrendered, Mussolini would never have been arrested and so on.

Hardly proves anything. That there was decent to an unsuccessful war would hardly imply opposition to the government. You’re reading way too much into it

Éomer of Rohan

The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows:D ). But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

ykt0di9url7bc3

The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows ). But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

and your point being?

we can all sit around here for the next 100 years bitching about WW2 or we can get on about the world at hand....

Iraq has been defeated and is being administrated by the United States...


wmd
United States has show only a passing interest in North Korea..."the UN will handle it"

humanitarian
United States have no idea who Robert Mugabe is....."tennis player?...??"

terrorism
United States is looking very hard at Syria.....

Oil
United States has control of the Iraqi oil lands

Imho opnion
Oil and Middle East stability are at the forefront of the US agenda

SkepticOne

Originally posted by SearrarD
Imho opnion
Oil and Middle East stability are at the forefront of the US agenda

Yes, a stable Middle East is necessary for stable and low oil prices. I don't think they can get away with actually stealing the oil, politically. I believe their aim is to set up a government that will be more predicable than Saddam and won't mess about with oil supply or the currency in which it is traded. They may also be seeking to undermine the OPEC cartel.

On the other hand, what would be interesting and controvertial is if they force Iraq to sell off some of the oilfields to oil companies to pay for reconstruction. If they want to outright steal the oil, they could sell the oilfields at knockdown prices to US oil companies while still under the control of the US retired general or Iraqi puppet.

What the US needs to do now, IMHO, is stabilise the situation in Iraq. First priority needs to be sorting out electricity and water and other basic services.

They need to deal with the looters and impose basic law and order. In the absence of a legal system after the war, fairly robust methods may need to be employed. I think the British and US have been reluctant to do this because of the tendency for the media to take things out of context.

There has been some debate as to whether the UN should be involved in setting up an interim Government. I can understand the US not wanting this, but I don't think the US can do it successfully on their own without questions of legitimacy arising, to the extent that the original purpose would be undermined.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by SearrarD
wmd
United States has show only a passing interest in North Korea..."the UN will handle it"

If the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz et al letter of 1998 to Clinton is to be believed, it would appear that WMD capability is a concern since Iraq is in an oil rich area.

"If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard."

WMDs less of a concern in Korea because they aren't near oil supplies to the same extent plus, of course, they have the bomb. Interestingly, the US is saying that they don't belive that NK has restarted its nuclear programme.

So I believe that the US genuinely believed that Saddam had the capability to manufacture WMDs prior to the war, although the links to terrorist groups like Al Queda are bogus. Attention now being turned to Syria because they haven't found any to date in Iraq. I think this is just a political move and they don't have any immediate intention of invading.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
So I believe that the US genuinely believed that Saddam had the capability to manufacture WMDs prior to the

I'd be more inclined to say that they believed he would have them someday, at which point it may prove infeasible to oust him.

Then again, your theory holds up if and when WMDs are discovered in Iraq, whereas mine is always open to criticism and debate even if none are ever found.

Oh well,

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd be more inclined to say that they believed he would have them someday, at which point it may prove infeasible to oust him.

This is also a possibility. Their point of view was maybe: "either he has the capability now, or if he doesn't he will have at some point".

Then again, your theory holds up if and when WMDs are discovered in Iraq, whereas mine is always open to criticism and debate even if none are ever found.

My point was really about the beliefs within the minds of the decision makers in the US not the actuality of WMDs in Iraq, so both your theory and mine are open to debate.

Éomer of Rohan

WMDs less of a concern in Korea because they aren't near oil supplies to the same extent plus, of course, they have the bomb. Interestingly, the US is saying that they don't belive that NK has restarted its nuclear programme.

That has to be the smokescreen for a climb down over a confrontation with North Korea - they have restarted their nuclear power station and they are producing enriched Uranium 235 so the obvious logical step would be to restart the programme? That was the clearly stated objective in withdrawing from the Tri-partite agreement of 1994, no?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
That has to be the smokescreen for a climb down over a confrontation with North Korea.

Yes, I believe so. I should have said that although there is some concern, (not as much as Iraq), they are unlikely to invade.

bonkey

It is also coupled with the fact that the spread of Communism is no longer seen as the Great Evil of Today [tm] by the administration.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The dissent to the unsuccessful war was the channeling point of all the opposition parties to the government (we tend to look at pre-Fascist Italian history as a case in point of how not to react in terms of workers opposition when an extreme right wing party grows:D ).

Those two (and quite separate) points are your opinion, please don’t portray them as fact.

But even consider the beginnings of the real power of the Fascist movement in Italy - the march on Rome was not a march by an entire people - in fact it was a relatively small number of people that forced the King to hand over power really.

What is the relevance of this point? Most if not all revolutions are as a result of a self-appointed minority. Be it the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Fascists in Italy or the Freemasons in America. Regardless, over twenty years passed from the March on Rome to the fall of Mussolini; drawing a connection is very dubious.

We now return you to your scheduled topic...