Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[Aponez]

Trivia question: what was the first democratic event for Saudi Arabia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But, there was any democratic event for Saudi Arabia?

[metadigital]

Trivia question: what was the first democratic event for Saudi Arabia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But, there was any democratic event for Saudi Arabia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Arab Idol": the power of capitalism has breeched the Iron curtain in the 80s with golden arches in Red Square, and the gloriously banal Pop Idol.

[Walsingham]

It's all about money and oil......not just for pro-war countries ( like the US, just a tip - at the present situation America is by her goverment and oil companies under control, direct or indirect, of almost around 80-85% oil reserves in the world - Nigeria, countries around the Caspian sea, american allies in the Persian Gulf, when Hugo Chavez is gone they'll over run Venezuela and when Gadafi is out of the picture they'll over run Libia - economicly speaking)....this is just a simple fight for resources , a totaly normal development in nature......but other major countries that were against the war aren't so rosy - for instant France, China and Russia were the biggest opponents just because Saddam owed them money big time (around 100 milion $ each), and they all knew if Iraq is liberated of Saddam there is going to be a widespread debt "forgiving" as a boost for a country troubled by war and they knew if they refused that, they would seem as "inappropriate" in the eyes of the world public.....that is just it.....in this world there isn't good vs. bad on a state level anymore....there are just countries eagrly fighting for resources - politicly, economicly and even militarily (as Iraq) that are running out and with their whole talks on moral and justice, (on the pro and against the war sides) that's just their attempt to justify their cause in the eyes of every day  people like you and me so they can run their various operations then seen as -legitimate-.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Absolutely bang on. France was owed money, and intended to become the high end systems supplier at the end of sanctions (which they thought would be tied up eventually), along with civil and oil engineering projects. France of course matured its angel into a potential case for weakening US hegemony and strengthening a European bloc. Something that underpins their whole foreign policy drive for the last ten years at least.

 

Russia and China wanted their slice of the Iraqi cake for hard currency exports. Russia also rather enjoyed Iraq being out of the oil game because it was buoying up their own oil exports (the only other significant foreign earner for them at the time.

[Walsingham]

Isn't there something like 8.8 billion of Iraqs oil wealth missing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

George Galloway has the vouchers under his bed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like a modern day Smaug. Cigar fumes wafting up the secret tunnel wherein lurk a bevvy of US senators.

 

(Apologies for double posting. But not sure how else to respond to different people).

 

 

I was going to wind up doing even more posting but I'll stick to it here.

 

1) Yes, the military do wind up working in the economic interests of corporations. This is a simple matter of economics. However, we also occasionally find that those interests coincide with humanitarian concerns. It's a fact of life that unless you want to quickly bankrupt yourself you have to do both together. If you go bankrupt you can't help anyone.

 

And Aponez is quite correct. Many military 'morons' risk life and limb, and spend years of their lives helping people all over the world in small relatively inexpensive projects.

 

2) In my opinion the British Empire gets a lot of stick for the way it lumped different ethnic groups together. Having grown up around some of the men who participated in this sort of thing I can say that in the main they were guilty of nothing worse than naive anti-racism. They happend to believe that despite their differences the people of wherever were not uncivilised barbarians but were potentially civilised people, and that if we just left them to get on with things they would sort it out for themselves. I mean, Britain herself is a massive hodgepodge of different tribes. the lines were drawn to make the countries concerned economically capable, not pander to sectarianism.

 

The alternative would be to stand up at the time and say "These damn foreigners are too dumb to bury their differences and cooperate." Which would have got you quietly assigned to peanut planting projects in Tuvalu at the time.

 

You have to also remember that the colonial office was up against an imperative to cede control asap. So even if they had accepted the principle of ethinc segregation, they would not have had the time to do the research. Even assuming every town and village could have been classed as 'kurdish' or 'shia'. Given that this was a practical impossibility it was even more obvious that they had to just build a working economic entity and let the people sort things out for themselves.

[Archmonarch]

(Apologies for double posting. But not sure how else to respond to different people).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Called the edit button it is.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Called the edit button it is."

 

No it isn't. It's called the "QUOTE+" button, or if you want to do it manually:

 

[quote=name]quote[/quote]

[Archoz]

2Good!

[metadigital]

... 2) [a] In my opinion the British Empire gets a lot of stick for the way it  lumped different ethnic groups together. Having grown up around some of the men who participated in this sort of thing I can say that in the main they were guilty of nothing worse than naive anti-racism. They happend to believe that despite their differences the people of wherever were not uncivilised barbarians but were potentially civilised people, and that if we just left them to get on with things they would sort it out for themselves. I mean, Britain herself is a massive hodgepodge of different tribes. the lines were drawn to make the countries concerned economically capable, not pander to sectarianism.

 

The alternative would be to stand up at the time and say "These damn foreigners are too dumb to bury their differences and cooperate." Which would have got you quietly assigned to peanut planting projects in Tuvalu at the time.

 

[c]You have to also remember that the colonial office was up against an imperative to cede control asap. So even if they had accepted the principle of ethinc segregation, they would not have had the time to do the research. Even assuming every town and village could have been classed as 'kurdish' or 'shia'. Given that this was a practical impossibility it was even more obvious that they had to just build a working economic entity and let the people sort things out for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

a. Yep, everyone's equal under the British class system, Monarchy, nobility, middle classes and working classes -- "Johnny Foreigner" was allowed to be in the last two, with the occassional knighthood for a carrot to keep the cogs of empire oiled.

 

b. No, the alternative would have been to be culturally sympathetic. It makes no big difference, however, as you say, because sooner or later the people would hopefully learn to live as "neighbours", whether in or out of some arbitrary political boundary. Like the Balkans.

 

I do think that the British have demonstrated a much more capable hand at setting up countries for independence; however they have had their share of failures, too. And Britain was not fledging countries for altruistic reasons, either; the Empire contained the necessary ingredients to expand and defend itself, right up to the near-monopoly of rubber plantations from Malaysia, required for the tyres of automobiles and casings of electric cables. Some of the atrocities committed in the name of Empire were so appauling that as soon as the British public were made aware of them they were curtailed: like Rhodes raping central Africa before France could beat them to it, and Germany could get started.

 

c. That's just a cop out; an excuse to cover a poor job. If the resolution was to do the job properly then no-one would have any reasonable argument against a longer withdrawal. The question your avoid is, Why -- if the British were so interested in Nation building -- did the actual core activities take place in that small fraction that was the end of the occupation? Nation-building was a side-effect of a good, strong Empire.

 

Then again, I'd rather be an ex-British colony than an ex-Spanish or Portuguese South American Banana Republic.

[taks]

If we're talking UNSC resolutions, however...by that logic, we ought to be in Israel, right now.  Israel, after all, holds the world record on UNSC resolutions broken, most of them dealing with Geneva Convention violations and nuclear capability pursuit/disclosure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

every one of the "violations" by israel fails to mention any repercussion for failure to comply. none mention any threat of force, and most actually just say "bad israel." israeli "resolution violations" are all of the chapter VI variety, which calls for negotiated compliance. nearly EVERY resolution against saddam's iraq, on the other hand, were filed under chapter VII, listed as "threats to peace." these resolutions also mention article 42, which authorizes military force in the event of non-compliance. none of israeli sanctions mention this, btw...

 

check your facts before speaking, it will prevent you from looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

taks

[taks]

High oil prices are ... *snip*

a rarely mentioned cause for high oil prices is the value of the dollar. oil is traded in dollars and the dollar is weak on international markets now. though this is not the only contributor, it is certainly a factor when the sheiks just aren't making as much per barrel when the dollar is off 40% (or more) compared to other currencies.

 

 

So no matter how much oil you pump out , it doesn't all come down to Iraq when the high oil prices are in question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very little, in fact is being driven by iraq. odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil, but even saudi arabia only accounts for 13% of US supplies... go figure.

 

taks

[Lucius]

.. odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Odd, there's quite a few of us here who didn't jump the oil wagon, Mr. Pro-War-Nut, how about you check your facts before posting. "

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Odd, there's quite a few of us here who didn't jump the oil wagon, Mr. Pro-War-Nut, how about you check your facts before posting. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you have an alternative solution or just protesting for the heck of it?

[Lucius]

Alternative solution to what? To the fact that not everyone against the war thinks it's about oil?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Alternative solution to what? To the fact that not everyone against the war thinks it's about oil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Going to war. Usually if I protest something It's because I have an alternative. Best one I've heard is wait until he died of old age. That one actually made me laugh not only because it was funny, but also because the person who said it was serious..

[Lucius]

Well, given that I've already stated my opinion earlier in this discussion, I didn't quite feel the need to do so again. ^_^

[metadigital]

The problem with the modern age is all this namby-pamby liberal thought about "protecting the innocent civilians". They'd all join up as soon as they could, and the womenfolk are all part of the fifth column and black market supply lines ... as Pope Innocent III is cited as saying "Kill 'em all, God will know who's innocent."

 

A couple of tactical neutron bombs, the ones that have a short half-life, so the radiation is down to manageable levels after a couple of weeks, are all that is required to clear out the area.

 

Then it's terra nullius, as far as international law goes, and finder's keepers!

 

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"as Pope Innocent III is cited as saying 'Kill them all. God will know His own.'"

 

Fixed.

[Kaftan Barlast]

..odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil..

 

 

 

Then could you tell us your your opinion of what this war is about? Im not arguing here, I just want to know your take on this.

[random evil guy]

Alternative solution to what? To the fact that not everyone against the war thinks it's about oil?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Going to war. Usually if I protest something It's because I have an alternative. Best one I've heard is wait until he died of old age. That one actually made me laugh not only because it was funny, but also because the person who said it was serious..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

solution to what? is it our(western world/nato/whatever) job to remove all those we don't like from power?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

solution to what? is it our(western world/nato/whatever) job to remove all those we don't like from power?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So your another let him die of old age.

[Darth Flatus]

... if that happened then one of his crazy sons would have taken over - most probably the one who wasn't crippled.

[Commissar]

every one of the "violations" by israel fails to mention any repercussion for failure to comply.  none mention any threat of force, and most actually just say "bad israel."  israeli "resolution violations" are all of the chapter VI variety, which calls for negotiated compliance.  nearly EVERY resolution against saddam's iraq, on the other hand, were filed under chapter VII, listed as "threats to peace."  these resolutions also mention article 42, which authorizes military force in the event of non-compliance.  none of israeli sanctions mention this, btw...

 

check your facts before speaking, it will prevent you from looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Article 42 authorizes use of military force in the event of non-compliance only if the UNSC votes to authorize that force. Did they do so for the recent invasion of Iraq? They did not. Therefore, the UNSC resolutions against Iraq have absolutely no bearing on the legality of the war.

 

My point, since it's clear that I'm going to have to explain it to the meanest understanding, was that since neither (recent) resolutions against Iraq nor against Israel were voted on by the UNSC to require the use of force to gain compliance, they have an equal force. If we want to use UNSC resolutions as a causus belli, even if the UN says they're not, what does it matter what chapter they're filed under?

 

The UNSC did not vote to sanction force against Iraq, despite our best efforts to do so - which included presentation of false documentation, I might add. And in hindsight, of course, it turns out that they were dead on the money, whereas we were either so poorly informed by our intelligence services that anything ever concluded by them in the future should be immediately thrown out, or we were lying about it all in the first place.

 

The deep irony of it all is, most anti-war folks I know would have supported the war if we'd gone in for the reasons we now claim to have gone in for; namely, to liberate the Iraqi people from harsh oppression. We, however, generally aren't Machiavellian types who feel that a good end justifies any means. We happen to believe in, you know, rule of law and that sort of thing. Like it or not, this war was sold to us as being vital to our national security, which it simply was not.

 

You want to make it a humanitarian thing now? Fine, but that still doesn't work in your favor. We work hand in hand with oppressionist regimes every day in that region, and we ignore other, graver humanitarian crises. Why? Working with the Saudis to bring about democracy in the Middle East is like having orgies in support of abstinence. But we can't get on without them, so we turn a blind eye and make them our buddies. We turn over terror suspects to countries with no limitations on torture to get the information we need, all while claiming to be a paragon of human rights and respect. Come on.

[Commissar]

solution to what? is it our(western world/nato/whatever) job to remove all those we don't like from power?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So your another let him die of old age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why not? Want me to start a running list of oppressionist, non-democratic regimes that we haven't gone to war with? A close look at our international anti-terror partners might even turn up a few...

 

Either we want to be the world's policeman, or we don't. If we do, we can't pick and choose easy fights. If we don't, then we've really got to stop trying to sell wholly self-interested actions as being for the better good of the world.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If we do, we can't pick and choose easy fights. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure you can.Unless you would rather not get involved at all. Nothing wrong with helping people and helping yourself at the same time.

[11XHooah]

very little, in fact is being driven by iraq.  odd that every anti-war nut wants to make this a war about oil, but even saudi arabia only accounts for 13% of US supplies... go figure.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spreading democracy - - only small minded American conservatives can buy that bullsh*t....you can't install true democracy with violence

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My God you are ignorant, you know that? What was the Revolutionary War? Violence was the only option to break off from British control, and last time I checked we are still a very democratic nation. It seems to me that you think democracy is just crapped out of a rainbow for all to enjoy. No consequences or sacrifices whatsoever.

Edited May 31, 2005 by 11XHooah