The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Playing dominoes in Iraq > Comments

Playing dominoes in Iraq : Comments

By John Hickman, published 13/2/2006

With no weapons of mass destruction and democracy not likely to be long term the US will have to justify the War in Iraq some other way.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Um…Keith, read the second-last paragraph, I did answer Planetagent.

Settle down mate! Planetagent and I are merely having a civilised debate and you’re getting all upset. Why?

I keep re-reading my second post and can’t see how you’ve interpreted it as abuse. It’s not like I started name-calling or anything. But if my tone sounded abusive then I apologise. You sound like a very sensitive person. My tone was intended to be amazement, not nastiness…or were your accusations of abuse merely a cop-out?

If you read my response to Planetagent (properly), you might see why I was so amazed that you could think that Thermistocles had said it all. Don't you think these sorts of questions deserve scrutiny? Personally I think that having too much faith in governments and the mainstream media is dangerous. Here we are, focusing all our attention on the terrorists, while the socially acceptable crooks are getting away with just about anything...a brilliant diversion.
Posted by Jinx, Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jinxy

You are making my write all these words ya bastard!

While I suspect you don’t hold Dubya in high regard your reply appeared sincere and you’ve indicated that Iran may be a danger worth attacking if the threat is proven and diplomatic channels are exhausted.

Alternative theories of 9/11 and bin Laden’s mortality are actually the biggest conspiracy theories around (unless you can point to bigger ones). The theorists are generally US centric Americans who can't conceive that anything evil can happen without AmeriKa being involved. Some foreigners see the world through this American thought prison.

If you want to persuade me of your theories on the 9/11 hijackers and whether bin Laden is dead (or ever existed) you’re going to have to provide evidence and links to succinct websites. I’m aware that there are whole organisations that support these theories with religious fervour.

From what I’ve read there’s not much compelling on 9/11 – just a MANTRA that whatever the US Government says is a lie that must be automatically discounted in favour of the most unlikely scenerio which is “the CIA and Mossad did it”.

So you’ll need to do better than that. But beware. I see it as racist to believe that Arabs were incapable of planning and executing the 9/11 operation.

The level of “corruption, hypocrisy and cronyism of the current US government” is about the usual standard in my experience. Republicans are usually damned by the kind of press you and I read. Just remember what people said about Reagan in his time – he was seen as the anti Christ, but he stared down the Russians and ended the Cold War. Meanwhile Bush ain’t too bright and relies on Vietnam era advisers like Rumsfeld and several straight shooting Texans.

Nevertheless since 9/11 there’s has been no similar terrorist attack on the West (so far). This may vindicate his strategy.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 16 February 2006 1:10:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
COMMENTS TO Jinxy - Part 2

I'm ranging more widely in this part.

Most of the conflict in the Middle East is a fight between the US and the Arab world for control of oil and a killing ground for Muslim terrorists (who would otherwise be attacking the West including Australia). A potential and deadly overlay is Iran’s quest for nukes and Israel’s threats to “disarm” Iran. Meanwhile Iraq its overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims killing Shiite Muslims (until the Shiites exact revenge).

US Democracy

Remember that Bush was resoundingly re-elected in 2004 and that was after many of the problems following the invasion of Iraq were already apparent including the absence of WMDs.

On impeachment of Bush? Nixon was worse in Vietnam and Cambodia. Bush could be impeached if the Democrats get the numbers after the midterms but his Presidency is winding down anyway. If the Democrats get in, in 2008, they may increase the numbers of American troops in the Middle East. Booting out Bush may not solve anything.

A thought from William Arken’s Washington Post blog is worth quoting:

"The [US] government has trapped itself between its desire to maintain a unified ideological front against terrorism on the one hand and its ability to provide any meaningful or thoughtful assessment of where we stand." http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/blowback_in_the.html#comments

I think its quite apt. The US clearly has an aggressive approach (the “fly paper” approach) to take the fight to the terrorists (in places like Afghanistan and now Iraq) but how do you convince the public of that?

Oil

How do you also convey to the public that oil is a major reason and a legitimate reason to invade a country (particularly if its regime is illegitimate).

A whole new set of concepts needs to develop around oil, regarding national legitimacy versus realpolitik.

I look forward to reading your bin Laden and 9/11 evidence.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 16 February 2006 1:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm Plantagenty, If you were the President (of the US) what would YOU do about Iran? You don’t seem to say anywhere in your posts?

However I would like to take a stab at that question if I may. If I were President of the US, I would have:

1. Not given the CIA millions of dollars to cooperate with the British to overthrow the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddeq of Iran in 1953, then install and support a Shah whose dictatorship would brutally suppress the Iranian people for the next 26 years and spawn an Islamic revolution in 1981. Leaving the rest of the world in a situation where radical fundamentalists today are in a position to gain nuclear weapons. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

2. Not given billions of dollars of arms (including chemical weapons) and money to a known torturer and psychopath to prolong a war with another country so that we could revenge for the results of an Islamic revolution that we caused!
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran-Iraq_War

3. Not supported or instigated countless other coup-de-tats around the world against democratically elected governments so as to make anyone with half a brain distrust my country and its motives. (Incidentally, the coup against the Iranian prime minister was the first for the CIA and the model created then used later all over South America and Latin America).
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
And Google; CIA+Coup for over 3 million hits!

One could go on and on endlessly. The current dilemma vis-à-vis Iran that we, the poor citizens of the world, find ourselves in today is a direct result of the failed geopolitical strategies for hegemony from the US over resources and trade. Anyone who argues otherwise should, as you yourself so wisely pointed out Plantegent, “read some history”.

Today’s situation calls for quiet diplomacy and not more saber rattling. When you back a scared animal into a corner, it’s going to fight back with all it can! Will brandishing a big stick calm it down?
Posted by Taiwan Teacher, Thursday, 16 February 2006 2:11:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taiwan Teacher

You make a lot of sense.

I understand what you mean as a fellow world citizen. Time we realised that brute force doesn't work in the long term.

Would like to add more to my post but not able to at present.

Thank you
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:23:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jinx

You answered in your second last paragraph. I apologise.

I became distracted by your ungracious and inaccurate commentary on the US Electoral process and the freely re-elected US Bush administration.

I was interested in your definition of a just war. A war for freedom and to maintain security.
Iraqi fits that bill.

You'd want the US to attack Iran since it is intent upon developing nuclear weapons. It already has WMDs. There is no need for intelligence. The Iranians stated that goal themselves. They also stated they want to destroy another country. The Iranian elections were fraudulent. The Iranian people live in a country dominated by a minority. The Europeans and Russians have bent over backwards to convince the Iranians to desist.

If I was US president, knowing I’d committed one third of my military capability to Iraq and Afghanistan. Understanding the Iranians also knew this, I'd surmise they are going ahead with their development because I cannot do anything with my conventional forces and am extremely unlikely to do anything nuclear. I’d be aware the the Iranians have influence over the Iraqi Shia and any threat to Iran would be countered by a guerilla campaign in Iraq.

Sanctions would be my answer with a precision attack by a third country upon the development facilities. Either Pakistan or Israel would likely agree as they are the people mostly threatened by a nuclear armed Iran. I’d also make it plan to the Iranians that should a nuclear weapon be detonated anywhere in the world my nuclear weapons would take out Tehran immediately. No questions anywhere. I'd make sure they knew I had as many of my nuclear armed submarines as I could parked in the Persian Gulf. I’d also intimate it would not be inconceivable I could detonate a nuke in my own backyard to achieve such a result.
I'd also make sure the rhetoric from the UN matched a committment to sanctions and my implied and actual threats.
I'd also start to support dissention within Iran.
Nothing is ever as simple as the polemic you're spouting, Jinx.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:18:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy