Blair is officially a c...

[wedge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8408918.stm

:mad:

[markabilly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8408918.stm

:mad:
of course it was right to remove Saddam with or without evidence of mass destruction....otherwise the price of oil that was being kept down from Saddam selling it through the black market, would still be around 10 to 20 dollars a barrel
:up:

them midd easterners like are dubeai, saudi and all the rest such as russia should say thanks

[Rollo]

The whole thing could have been done with minimum fuss by sending in four SAS troops with a high powered sniper rifle and dispatching a single "I love you" message to Saddam.

If the operation had been done properly, then no armies and air strikes would have been needed at all.

[anthonyvop]

The whole thing could have been done with minimum fuss by sending in four SAS troops with a high powered sniper rifle and dispatching a single "I love you" message to Saddam.

If the operation had been done properly, then no armies and air strikes would have been needed at all.

You have watched too many bad movies.

take out Saddam and somebody else would have taken his place. That person would have probably been even worse due to the retribution that would have come.

[Roamy]

I think we should have fully realiZed the civil war that would ensue after removing Saddam. I would have done exactly was Bush did but after we dug him out of the tunnel I would have left after dismantling the republican guard.

[Rollo]

take out Saddam and somebody else would have taken his place. That person would have probably been even worse due to the retribution that would have come.

There would have always been a power vaccuum, irrespective of how it was done. The question is would it have caused the same amount of civillian lives lost.

It certainly would have been far cheaper in terms of dollars spent.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, I was tentatively for the invasion because Blair believed in it. THat said, somewhere along the line a bit of a hash was made of the peace that was to follow.

That said, Saddam had to go, and only in Hollywood movies does the hero take out the evil dictator with a scope and a lovely sniper's rifle. The risk to the men to be caught would be to great, and Saddam's security was pretty formidible. Believe me, if he could have been taken out that way, he would have have by Mossad.

As for this being done to jack up the price of oil, that is nonsense. Iraq doesn't produce enough of the world's oil supply to effect the price AND the speculators proved a year or so ago they can drive the price per barrel through the roof just on futures.....

[Eki]

Meanwhile, Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, backed Mr Blair's stance.

The foreign minister, a member of a government brought into being as a result of the invasion, was a senior Kurdish official during the 1990s.

What a surprise. I'm sure that Quisling would have backed Hitler's stance that the German invasion to Norway was the right thing to do too.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What a surprise. I'm sure that Quisling would have backed Hitler's stance that the German invasion to Norway was the right thing to do too.

Unlike the Quislings Eki, the Kurd's were gassed, attacked and maimed by the previous regime. You of course were ok with all of that...because I know defensive you are of ol Saddam. I bet you get a tear in your eye thinking about the good ole days....

This fella probably had a tear or two for the thousands of his maimed and killed countrymen...

Gee Eki..do you ever THINK about what the Kurd's went through with Saddam?

[markabilly]

As for this being done to jack up the price of oil, that is nonsense. Iraq doesn't produce enough of the world's oil supply to effect the price AND the speculators proved a year or so ago they can drive the price per barrel through the roof just on futures.....
Wrong....the effect of just a little extra oil, is more than enough to drive down the price of oil and many oil experts were pointing to the impact of the "oil for food" exception of the UN, that was the source for keeping down the price of oil before the war. You will recall the UN official who later turned out to have profitted very well in terms of book keeping, as the oil money was slipping under the table......and not being used for food

In the absence of Saddam and the "food for oil", the price is much more "controllable" by cartels and speculators (as u noted in terms of recent events)....and if Bush jr was too dumb to figure it out, his VP was certainly not, as who did ole cheney work for, and for getting elected, when he left that company, his extra bonus (on top of what he would already get, was a mere 50 million......a very very profitable investment for halliburton, who makes drilling rigs and other stuff (and also profitted greatly by the war)....

Of course not saying that Saddam did not deserve a slow hanging, as he certainly did deserve it.....but then there are many other deserving candidates as well in the international world of politics :D

[F1boat]

Saddam was an evil dictator, but the way the war was done and the chaos which followed... I don't think that it was the right thing to do...

[Eki]

Unlike the Quislings Eki, the Kurd's were gassed, attacked and maimed by the previous regime. You of course were ok with all of that...because I know defensive you are of ol Saddam. I bet you get a tear in your eye thinking about the good ole days....

This fella probably had a tear or two for the thousands of his maimed and killed countrymen...

Gee Eki..do you ever THINK about what the Kurd's went through with Saddam?
That was 15 years before the invasion and the Kurds had been autonomous for over 10 years since the first Gulf War. If that justified the invasion to Iraq, then the Soviet invasion to Finland in 1939 was justified by the Finnish Civil War in 1918. One of the Soviet excuses for the invasion was that they were going to liberate the Finnish working class from their capitalist and fascist oppressors, who 20 years earlier had executed and starved to death in prison camps about 20,000 Finns of the working class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

[Mark in Oshawa]

Wrong....the effect of just a little extra oil, is more than enough to drive down the price of oil and many oil experts were pointing to the impact of the "oil for food" exception of the UN, that was the source for keeping down the price of oil before the war. You will recall the UN official who later turned out to have profitted very well in terms of book keeping, as the oil money was slipping under the table......and not being used for food

In the absence of Saddam and the "food for oil", the price is much more "controllable" by cartels and speculators (as u noted in terms of recent events)....and if Bush jr was too dumb to figure it out, his VP was certainly not, as who did ole cheney work for, and for getting elected, when he left that company, his extra bonus (on top of what he would already get, was a mere 50 million......a very very profitable investment for halliburton, who makes drilling rigs and other stuff (and also profitted greatly by the war)....

Of course not saying that Saddam did not deserve a slow hanging, as he certainly did deserve it.....but then there are many other deserving candidates as well in the international world of politics :D

So basically getting rid of a corrupt UN Scheme that Saddam was using to line his own pockets is a correct reason to keep the oil prices in check? Dream on...

That is illogical.

I also being told by many members of the chattering classes who objected to Bush's war that this was a campaign for cheap oil, not more expensive oil. The elephant in the room you ignore of course is OPEC. The oil producing countries of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone will adjust or not adjust their taps and production to manipulate the price of oil if they can. OPEC doesn't want the price down, they want it up. What Saddam was doing or not doing behind everyone's back was just a side show.

Still doesn't justify this slimeball's regime, and whether it was 15 or 30 years ago he was gassing Kurds, no one misses the Hussein Regime. There is a reason the Kurds were glad for the invasion, because they had no real hope for a lasting peace or safety as long as the Baath Party was running Baghdad.

Should the US/UK alliance invasion of Iraq be considered a mistake? Yes and no. It was far more messy and nasty than the proponents told us it would be, but I am not saying that the world isn't better off now. Iraqi's on the ground might disagree, but how many of them wouldn't admit that they were profitting at other's expense in Iraq either. The Sunni's ran the nation at the expense of the Kurds and Shiites. Hussein was killing thousands every year in a regime that Amnesty condemned for its brutality. Spare me the justification for keeping someone around in power that did THAT.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That was 15 years before the invasion and the Kurds had been autonomous for over 10 years since the first Gulf War. If that justified the invasion to Iraq, then the Soviet invasion to Finland in 1939 was justified by the Finnish Civil War in 1918. One of the Soviet excuses for the invasion was that they were going to liberate the Finnish working class from their capitalist and fascist oppressors, who 20 years earlier had executed and starved to death in prison camps about 20,000 Finns of the working class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

The Finnish Civil war has nothing to do with Iraq, and the Soviets used that as their excuse, but they didn't need an excuse really. They wanted Finland and tried to take it. If they didn't make THAT up, they would have found another reason. Wheras the Kurds in Iraq wanted the US to finish the job that was started in 91. I cant see anyone but a communist Finn wanting the Soviets invading......

[Eki]

I cant see anyone but a communist Finn wanting the Soviets invading......

I can't see anyone but a Kurdish or a Shia Iraqi wanting the US to invade either. If the Americans didn't make the imaginary Iraqi WMDs or Iraqi involvement in 9/11 attacks up, they would have found another reason.

The Soviets indeed had other excuses, they said Finland was a threat to the Soviet Union and that the border was too close to Leningrad for their convenience. That sounds similar to claims that Iraq could have some how been a threat to the US.

[wedge]

The British Invasion was sold on the assumption of WMDs, not on oppressing the Kurds.

[markabilly]

So basically getting rid of a corrupt UN Scheme that Saddam was using to line his own pockets is a correct reason to keep the oil prices in check? Dream on...

That is illogical.

I also being told by many members of the chattering classes who objected to Bush's war that this was a campaign for cheap oil, not more expensive oil. The elephant in the room you ignore of course is OPEC. The oil producing countries of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone will adjust or not adjust their taps and production to manipulate the price of oil if they can. OPEC doesn't want the price down, they want it up. What Saddam was doing or not doing behind everyone's back was just a side show.

Still doesn't justify this slimeball's regime, and whether it was 15 or 30 years ago he was gassing Kurds, no one misses the Hussein Regime. There is a reason the Kurds were glad for the invasion, because they had no real hope for a lasting peace or safety as long as the Baath Party was running Baghdad.

Should the US/UK alliance invasion of Iraq be considered a mistake? Yes and no. It was far more messy and nasty than the proponents told us it would be, but I am not saying that the world isn't better off now. Iraqi's on the ground might disagree, but how many of them wouldn't admit that they were profitting at other's expense in Iraq either. The Sunni's ran the nation at the expense of the Kurds and Shiites. Hussein was killing thousands every year in a regime that Amnesty condemned for its brutality. Spare me the justification for keeping someone around in power that did THAT.
Yeah and there are plenty of other regimes doing the same and worse....but nobody invaded them. Look at North korea, why go there? They got no oil and a far better program for mass destruction. Then there is Eki's love buddies in Iran :love: , a whole bunch of necks in need of sgt Woods, slow hang technique....but none of them are driving down the price of oil, so we ain't going.

See the problem is of a catch 22 nature. When one country like Iraq has the oil to fill the gap, other countries can not control it. As the price goes down, to make their debt payments (much like Dubai) they have to increase production, but that just drives down prices further or they just keep prices high and let the debt go bad or refi where possible. Iraq was the only wildcard out there and smoking those butts meant no more wildcaards.

You really think Bush and his buds give a hoot in hell about kurds. They did not in the first gulf war, and when they up rose, Bush senior and his buds did not do squat. Many were slaughtered man, woman and child, right in front of american troops. All this talk was , was just an excuse for the gullible, and you along with many others, fall in to the category.

Even dumber is that ole bush might have beleived his own BS and those oil companies who thought their profits would soar, well they were right, they did. Only problem was that all this eventually lead to the massive recession much as in someone who kills themselves by reason of drinking so much booze, they die.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah and there are plenty of other regimes doing the same and worse....but nobody invaded them. Look at North korea, why go there? They got no oil and a far better program for mass destruction. Then there is Eki's love buddies in Iran :love: , a whole bunch of necks in need of sgt Woods, slow hang technique....but none of them are driving down the price of oil, so we ain't going.. North Korea isn't being invaded because the cost of that invasion would make the casualties of Iraq look like a drop in the bucket. Mainly on the North Korean side. Kim Il Sung will send the poor soldiers of that nation by the million into a meat grinder. Also, as "dangerous" as the midget and his regime are, the President of the US can phone Beijing and all the sudden Kim, behaves to an extent. What is happening in North Korea is abhorrent and horrible, but they are part of the Chinese circle of influence. Upsetting the Chinese is what keeps Kim safe, and also keeps him in check. Iraq had no one to answer to but the UN, and Saddam refused to do it.


See the problem is of a catch 22 nature. When one country like Iraq has the oil to fill the gap, other countries can not control it. As the price goes down, to make their debt payments (much like Dubai) they have to increase production, but that just drives down prices further or they just keep prices high and let the debt go bad or refi where possible. Iraq was the only wildcard out there and smoking those butts meant no more wildcaards..
Saddam made himself a target period when he didn't comply with the UN sanctions that were to be enforced by the winning powers of the first Gulf War. It is what makes this mess all legal. Sure he was selling oil on the black market, but lets face the reality, the Saudi's adjust their production all the time to mess with the price of oil and usually keep it where THEY want it. Iraq wasn't exporting that much oil.


You really think Bush and his buds give a hoot in hell about kurds. They did not in the first gulf war, and when they up rose, Bush senior and his buds did not do squat. Many were slaughtered man, woman and child, right in front of american troops. All this talk was , was just an excuse for the gullible, and you along with many others, fall in to the category..

They care, but you guys seem to forget that in real politik situations, all nations will make decisions to support or not support groups that in the cold light of day seem wrong. The American troops in that first Gulf War were not given a mandate by the UN to go any further. I can bet many of those troops would have just loved to go in there and protect the Kurd's. The common US man will always sympathize with the underdog, and the Kurd's at that time were that. There is a reason HW Bush lost that election, and it could be partially because many of the people who normally supported him were dissatisfied with his lame defense of what happened there.


Even dumber is that ole bush might have beleived his own BS and those oil companies who thought their profits would soar, well they were right, they did. Only problem was that all this eventually lead to the massive recession much as in someone who kills themselves by reason of drinking so much booze, they die.

Bush didn't believe any of it. Bush believes in the free Market. All his detractors in 02 and 03 whined it was a war for cheap oil. Then the price soared and it was a war to drive the price of oil up. Now the prices have dropped and it was a war to control oil again and keep it cheap. Somehow, his detractors cant seem to make up their minds.

It is the free market. If Iraq participates in it as a soverign nation and the people benefit from it, then they are far better off than Saddam's regime making money for the numerous construction projects to glorify Saddam. I keep waiting by the way for the UN officials and in particular Kofi Annan's kid to be charged for their role in that. Talk about profiteering!

[Langdale Forest]

You can call Blair a Land Rover if you want to!