Iraq, terrorism and Defence spending

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by spikegifted

So much for a democratically elected government.

The government is democratically elected.

[Blub2k]

Walibe having read the rest of your posts here you are either a "spook" or a very gullible person, sorry to make that sound insulting but man you haven't really got your bu****it filters on and put your jingo hat on a while ago I think. It is sad that propaganda works so well, but it does, anyway I dont know how you can say that the PNAC link is not relevant when it was already mentioned indirectly by Spikegifted.

[Blub2k]

Well Irelands actually got soldiers in a fair few places around the world so thats a bit of a stupid thing to say really huh?

Ok where does Ireland have soldiers bolstering an illegal invasion with an illegal occupying force? Under the auspices of the UN? And you call me stupid? Ireland were never in the colonial game.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
The government is democratically elected.

I know...

But was the decision representative of the country? TB said on a TV interview to the effect of: "I made a judgment call, I think it was a good call and I still think it's a good call." Err... Tony, did you notice that half the country was telling you it's not a good idea?

As things drags on longer and longer, there are increasing amount of material coming out that suggested that the 'evidence' presented in the US/UK case for war is getting thinner and less convincing:

- There's no WDM on the ground: The Pentagon has admitted that they may never find any; the Iraq Survey Group has spent months going around and have found nothing but plans. (So I guess it's ok to throw someone in jail if he thinks, or has the thought, that someone should be killed?) Iraq, under Saddam's regime, sent a dossier of its weapons systems to the UN last December and it claimed no current WDM systems, but nobody (ie. the US and UK) was prepare to believe them.

- Iraq did not try to acquire material for nuclear bomb making: Colin Powell and other US and UK officials repeated said that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear material from Gabon to build a bomb... Well, I guess someone got that one wrong also.

- Post-Saddam terrorist threat: the PM was specifically warned of the potential increase in terrorist threats after the collapse of the regime, prior to the war. The PM chose to go with his gut instinct.

- Intelligence: Not only did the world's most sophisticated and well funded intelligence service (CIA) had no clue of what the regime was up to, the less well funded and less extensive one (the MI6, SIS, etc of the UK) chose to deliberately fudge the line between battle-field ballistics and strategic long-range weapons, when there was no signs of either forms existed to heighten the perceived threat.

- Regime change: While ‘regime change’ was part of the US’s agenda, it was never supposed to one for the UK. The PM took this country to war on the basis that Iraq, under Saddam, had WDM which posted an immediate threat to the security of this country. (See previous points.) If ‘regime change’ was an agenda, I suppose there are plenty of other worthwhile targets to pick other than Iraq - e.g. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Azerbaijan, etc... Anyway, ‘regime change’ is like taking a gun to someone’s house and shoot the husband dead because you hear the wife is crying. This is kind of one country behaving as ‘judge, jury and executioner’ is not acceptable in this day and age.

[Blub2k]

Spikegifted, you are questioning your countries motives in going to war, are you sure you are not an al-qaeda operative??
muahahaha
Anyway I think you have spotted the PNAC cabal at work, did you read the link?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by spikegifted
I know...

But was the decision representative of the country? TB said on a TV interview to the effect of: "I made a judgment call, I think it was a good call and I still think it's a good call." Err... Tony, did you notice that half the country was telling you it's not a good idea?

As things drags on longer and longer, there are increasing amount of material coming out that suggested that the 'evidence' presented in the US/UK case for war is getting thinner and less convincing:

- There's no WDM on the ground: The Pentagon has admitted that they may never find any; the Iraq Survey Group has spent months going around and have found nothing but plans. (So I guess it's ok to throw someone in jail if he thinks, or has the thought, that someone should be killed?) Iraq, under Saddam's regime, sent a dossier of its weapons systems to the UN last December and it claimed no current WDM systems, but nobody (ie. the US and UK) was prepare to believe them.

- Iraq did not try to acquire material for nuclear bomb making: Colin Powell and other US and UK officials repeated said that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear material from Gabon to build a bomb... Well, I guess someone got that one wrong also.

- Post-Saddam terrorist threat: the PM was specifically warned of the potential increase in terrorist threats after the collapse of the regime, prior to the war. The PM chose to go with his gut instinct.

- Intelligence: Not only did the world's most sophisticated and well funded intelligence service (CIA) had no clue of what the regime was up to, the less well funded and less extensive one (the MI6, SIS, etc of the UK) chose to deliberately fudge the line between battle-field ballistics and strategic long-range weapons, when there was no signs of either forms existed to heighten the perceived threat.

- Regime change: While ‘regime change’ was part of the US’s agenda, it was never supposed to one for the UK. The PM took this country to war on the basis that Iraq, under Saddam, had WDM which posted an immediate threat to the security of this country. (See previous points.) If ‘regime change’ was an agenda, I suppose there are plenty of other worthwhile targets to pick other than Iraq - e.g. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Azerbaijan, etc... Anyway, ‘regime change’ is like taking a gun to someone’s house and shoot the husband dead because you hear the wife is crying. This is kind of one country behaving as ‘judge, jury and executioner’ is not acceptable in this day and age.

I'm not arguing that the reasons for going to war were false. I am 100% against the war and am frankly amazed that not one of the leaders of the "allied" forces (Bush, Blair, Howard) has had the decency to resign.

However, Blair is not prime minister to do what the majority of the general public want. He is there to do what is best for the country in the long run. That's his mandate, AFAIAC. If we did what the majority wanted there would be no social servies, no health care system and hanging would be legal.

This is not an issue about the democratic system in this country. If people feel that Blair misled them then he will not be in 10 Downing Street in three years time. That's the democratic system.

[walibe]

Walibe having read the rest of your posts here you are either a "spook" or a very gullible person, sorry to make that sound insulting but man you haven't really got your bu****it filters on and put your jingo hat on a while ago I think. It is sad that propaganda works so well, but it does, anyway I dont know how you can say that the PNAC link is not relevant when it was already mentioned indirectly by Spikegifted.

To be honest before you start all the rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish maybe you should have a little respect for other peoples views, Dabeeenster hasn't made personal insults yet argues the same argument as you (although far more effectively).

Secondly you have no idea of the job I do, the people I work with or what I know.

The contents, well certainly the arguments in it have already been discussed here. Alot of the content of the site is mis informed and too full of speculation.

Either way Iraq has been found to of been in breach of restrictions placed on as recently accounced. Although no WMD have been found the following have:

Biological Chemicals
A program to develope missiles with range 10 times over what has been sanctioned.

These breaks the restrictions/reseloution placed upon Iraq and made legal the actions as approved by the UN.

Secondly if you listened to a recent speach made by the UN President you'll actually find that hes looking very likely to allow pre emptive strikes. Read what you like into the reasoning behind this but it is all true.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
However, Blair is not prime minister to do what the majority of the general public want. He is there to do what is best for the country in the long run. That's his mandate, AFAIAC...

This is not an issue about the democratic system in this country. If people feel that Blair misled them then he will not be in 10 Downing Street in three years time. That's the democratic system.

Sure, I just hope that people remember how find a job he's done for them comes the next election. If only this country has an effective (party or parties)...

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by walibe

The contents, well certainly the arguments in it have already been discussed here. Alot of the content of the site is mis informed and too full of speculation.

Do you know who the PNAC are? They are a neo-conservative think tank with VERY strong ties to the people in office in the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1665.htm

The chairman of PNAC is William Kristol, former editor of Commentary Magazine. Present and former members include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Ellen Bork, the wife of Judge Robert Bork. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the hawkish neoconservative school of political theory.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...erican_Century

In short, be afraid. Be very afraid

[spikegifted]

hawkish neoconservative school of political theory

Isn't that a modern polite term for the Nazis?

[walibe]

Interesting to see that French Missiles supplied THIS year have been found in Iraq, perhaps this is why they were so strongly against the war? This could have serious implications for France.

PJ

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by walibe
Interesting to see that French Missiles supplied THIS year have been found in Iraq, perhaps this is why they were so strongly against the war?

Please explain to me what this has got to do with an illegal invasion of another sovereign country?

Additionally, please don't jump to conclusion - that's what happend to the intelligence services and politicians in the US and the UK... The weapons could easily have been sold to places like Syria or Jordan and subsequently sold on to Iraq. Do you have any understanding of Middle East politics apart from the Anglo-centric view presented by the US and the UK? And then represented in bite-size format by the tabloids

[walibe]

Please explain to me what this has got to do with an illegal invasion of another sovereign country?

Its helping to show you some of the 'logical' thinking behind one of the main opposers to the war. We have already explained there was nothing illegal about the in invasion, plain and simple even the UN will admit this and will in future may support premptive strikes (probably to avoid situations like this).

The weapons COULD of come from another country but have to remember the time scales. The weapons were manufactured earlier THIS year so its unlikely there would be time for the weapons to have been sold to someone like Syria and then onto Iraq before the war.

This could well turn out to be Frances 'Kelly' affair. I'm not saying the weapons sales would of been sanctioned by the government, but clearly something illegal has happened here, and someone with some level of power in the government would of known about it.

Alot of the papers speculated on Frances motivation, and the fact that they were a very large weapons exporter to Iraq before the first gulf war was highlighting their motivation. Their opposition was purely political, affraid of loosing sales and afraid of loosing a stake in Iraq after this recent war. There was nothing morale about their campaign. The only morale people here seem to be the Germans which I respect for their opposition and conducted them selves and indeed their argument in a very reasonable fashion with no 'below the belt' blows.

PJ

[spikegifted]

Very few countries can claim a "moral high ground" on this war, least of all the lies and deceptions played by the governments of the US and the UK. At the same time, IMHO, aggressors of wars, on the whole, are immoral or have little or no morals.

With regards to your comment about the UN is about to support future pre-emptive strikes, I'd like to draw your attention to the following:

But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - and French President Jacques Chirac - implicitly rebuked the US for taking unilateral, pre-emptive action and called for the body to play a "full part" in rebuilding Iraq.

Pre-emptive attacks "could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification", Mr Annan said.

Source BBC News

On your point about French missles found in Iraq, let's deal with what we know and let the situation play out. I like to draw your attention to the following:

A French foreign ministry spokesman said the missile system had not been manufactured since 1988, in the case of the Roland 2 system, and 1993 in the case of Roland 3.

Additionally, since the US adminstration has taken a hard line over the French government's attitude towards the Iraq war, the US based news media has taken its own steps in 'dressing down' the French, so I guess if anything is found to have implicated the French government in support Iraq, the US news media will swamp all over the news like flies on muck, but I've been to all the reputable US news sites and none has even a quote on this story.

[Blub2k]

Alot of the content of the site is mis informed and too full of speculation

Funny that, it is a site set up by the same people that brought you Gulf War 1 & 2.
It amazes me that people can read that site ( an official one ) and it lays out a plan that we are seeing in action, yet apparently we are not seeing this plan, it is all just coincidental... oh yeah and those French....tut tut.

Well Irelands actually got soldiers in a fair few places around the world so thats a bit of a stupid thing to say really huh?

Oh yeah, this was the first insult, you began by lowering the tone!

[walibe]

With regards to your comment about the UN is about to support future pre-emptive strikes, I'd like to draw your attention to the following:

Yes but actually go on and read the rest of the speach.

The missiles were dated this year, you can't believe everything the French ministry will say.

The fact that many of you are unable to see the benefits of this war troubles me somewhat. Lets not forget the people of Iraq are now free and will have Democratic elections, will not be lead to their local police station to never come back and will benefit from the revenue from the oil for the first time. If you guys fail to see this then there is clearly something wrong. Secondly do not confuse the people of Iraq with the terrorists and loyalists (a minority here) who are ambushing soldiers and oil/water supplies ect.

Like it or not, Iraq is now in a better situation than it was.

PJ