Poll: DELETED_74993

[Castiel]

Lots of his weapons were dismantled one way or another in the fist Gulf War, how on earth did he reassemble the apparatus to manufacture these weapons later on?

That's not the issue, the issue is that he conspired to interfere and in some cases halt weapons inspections.

Whether he had them or not could not be fully ascertained because of his actions, not the UN's or the UK/US. Did it suit the UK/US agenda, of course it did, but inventing evidence, why bother and if they had, why not simply "plant" the required evidence after the fact?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Saddam was vehemently anti Al Qaeda.

A US Senate report found no links between them prior to the 2003 war.

 

[Castiel]

Saddam was vehemently anti Al Qaeda.

A US Senate report found no links between them prior to the 2003 war.

Indeed. al Qaeda had no connection to the Hussein Regime.

The same is true of Gadaffi before someone decides to plant that one on him.

 

[dirtydog]

I do not ascribe to dirtydogs collusion/conspiracy agenda in this respect.

There is plenty of proof that Blair/Campbell/John Scarlett conspired and colluded to present a pack of lies to parliament and to the people, so that we would participate in the Iraq invasion.

 

[doodah]

Saddam was vehemently anti Al Qaeda.

A US Senate report found no links between them prior to the 2003 war.

That's the point I am making - it sounds like at least that aspect of going to war was completely fabricated. So why not other aspects?

 

[do_ron_ron]

Be that as it may, I don't accept that the UK/US administrations colluded to "invent" intel that showed WMD's.

I believe it was based on poorly obtained and unverified sources and suited the overall agenda, but "invented", no.

We now know that at least two years before it happened the US had decided to invade. All that was missing was the excuse.

Intelligence agencies contain experts in the so called 'black arts', misinformation etc, etc.

It is fairly obvious that 'intel' was invented to provide that excuse.

 

[do_ron_ron]

AFP reports that hundreds of Sri Lankans have staged a protest outside UN headquarters in Colombo against foreign intervention in Libya. The protesters said the West was trying to control Libyan oil and that Col Gaddafi should be protected.

Is this the start of a backlash?

 

[Castiel]

We now know that at least two years before it happened the US had decided to invade. All that was missing was the excuse.

Intelligence agencies contain experts in the so called 'black arts', misinformation etc, etc.

It is fairly obvious that 'intel' was invented to provide that excuse.

No it's not "fairly obvious"

Too many people watching too much Bourne Identity methinks.

The intel was wrong, that is a fact. That the US administration "made it up" is not a fact, it is nothing more than opinion.

Did they ignore "gaps" and "inconsistencies" because it suited their agenda? I suspect that they did, however did they simply "make it up", unlikely.

If they did, then they did a pretty poor job of it, it would have been simplicity itself to invent tangible proof of weapons programs during and immediately after combat operations if they wished to.

 

[doodah]

Question......have Western governments previously misinformed their nations in order to go to war? How long will it be until they think we have forgotten and try and do it again? A lot of our civilization revolves around duping people

 

[Danthus]

Is this the start of a backlash?

Not to mention what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and reports today of a "Secret Police" roaming around Uganda torturing and killing people.

I suppose we will turn a blind eye to Israel as well.

 

[Castiel]

Not to mention what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and reports today of a "Secret Police" roaming around Uganda torturing and killing people.

I suppose we will turn a blind eye to Israel as well.

The bottom line is this:

"Is intervention, military or other, in our National Interest".

regardless of what politicians say about humanitarian necessity that is the over-riding and very real question that is asked before we do anything.

Quite rightly as well.

 

[Danthus]

The bottom line is this:

"Is intervention, military or other, in our National Interest".

regardless of what politicians say about humanitarian necessity that is the over-riding and very real question that is asked before we do anything.

Quite rightly as well.

No, it is absolutely wrong to talk about humanitarianism whilst ignoring the plight of other people in other countries.

Now, if we had gone into Libya on the premise of it being in our national interest I may have a modicum of respect for the decision.

Humanitarianism is a nice little word that tugs at the heart strings, more palatable than securing our oil interest.

 

[magick]

"Is intervention, military or other, in our National Interest".

Short answer is no. But it's certainly in the interests of the arms companies and a very small political elite with questionable global ambitions.

 

[Danthus]

Short answer is no. But it's certainly in the interests of the arms companies and a very small political elite with questionable global ambitions.

I agree.

It was only the other week Cameron was in Egypt flanked by arms dealers!

 

[Castiel]

No, it is absolutely wrong to talk about humanitarianism whilst ignoring the plight of other people in other countries.

Now, if we had gone into Libya on the premise of it being in our national interest I may have a modicum of respect for the decision.

Humanitarianism is a nice little word that tugs at the heart strings, more palatable than securing our oil interest.

Is Oil security not in our national interest?

Do you disagree that Govt make decisions based on National Interest and not Humanitarianism as I'm not sure whether you agree with me or not.

I wasn't specifically referring to Libya btw.

 

[mmj_uk]

The bottom line is this:

"Is intervention, military or other, in our National Interest".

regardless of what politicians say about humanitarian necessity that is the over-riding and very real question that is asked before we do anything.

Quite rightly as well.

Do you think Hitler tried to conquer Europe for the fun of it? that was in Germany's national interest it doesn't make it right no matter how he spun it to the German people at the time.

 

[Castiel]

Do you think Hitler tried to conquer Europe for the fun of it? that was in Germany's national interest it doesn't make it right.

Pretty poor example though isn't it.

The decision rightly should be about our national interest, whether our national interest is morally justifiable or not is a separate issue.

 

[Castiel]

Short answer is no. But it's certainly in the interests of the arms companies and a very small political elite with questionable global ambitions.

So never is military or political intervention in foreign affairs about national interest?

 

[a1ex2001]

Is Oil security not in our national interest?

Oil production in Libiya is pretty much insignificant to the UK in terms of oil security, it is however importnat to big business and I'm not sure war is in the National Interest if it is just to prop up the interests of a few very rich business men.

Oil is also a pretty pointless argument as had the regime been allowed to crush the uprising oil production would have continued unhindered as it is production an export is being hampered by a war that has no end in sight or logical conclusion.

So never is military or political intervention in foreign affairs about national interest?

I think you'll find he is reffering to this particular intervention which certainly isn't in our National Interest, the cost is vast and the benefit insignificant. This war disguised as a no-fly zone is just pointless posturing on the world stage, we need to stop playing the big I am and concentrate on putting our own shop in order.

 

[Castiel]

Oil production in Libiya is pretty much insignificant to the UK in terms of oil security, it is however importnat to big business and I'm not sure war is in the National Interest if it is just to prop up the interests of a few very rich business men.

Oil is also a pretty pointless argument as had the regime been allowed to crush the uprising oil production would have continued unhindered as it is production an export is being hampered by a war that has no end in sight or logical conclusion.

But is not stability in the markets as well as the region not in our national interest?

Would it not be hugely detrimental to see North Africa turn into Somalia.