Is it time to pull out of Iraq? - Page 3

garinda · 23-03-2005, 06:33

l again state my opinion that this war was about money/oil.
Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to democracy, and the comparisson to Nazi Germany may be fair, although the Nazi's were elected in 1933 and had commited a whole array of illegal [invading Austria,] and unethical [clearing Jews to concentration camps,] by the time we entered into war in 1939. So that war was more defensive of geographical issues than moral issues.
One of the most fundamental Islamic countries in the world is Saudi Arabia yet we have a firm, friendly relationship with this country. We also have an extensive arms trade with this country that has an appalling human rights record, yet Bush/Blair have never dared to interfere with this Islamic absolute Monarchy. There are plenty of poor Islamic countries [non- oil producing,] where people live in fear of the extremists, that Bush probably hasn't even heard of.
Never be afraid to voice your opinion [Willow,] everyone has a right to voice their opinion, as well as disagree with them.

WillowTheWhisp · 23-03-2005, 12:30

I may well have a right to my opinion but I still don't believe that I am in possession of all the facts in this case. For one thing, it started out being a "war against terrorism" following the WTC 9/11 thing and aimed at Osama Bin Laden and Al Q'aida (or however you want to spell it) when suddenly it became "let's invade Iraq they've got WMD" when there was no proof available. I still think there are things we haven't been told and maybe will not learn of until 30 - 50 years hence.

And as for people in this country who incite violence against the indigenous population I think they should be deported pdq, asap or even sooner than that. Instead we feed clothe and house them at the expense of the tax payer. Insane or what?

garinda · 23-03-2005, 15:27

None of us are in the position of having all the facts, on this or lots of issues. ln response to the atrocoties of 9/11, the US/UK alliance used the fight against terorism to start a war in Iraq. There are no known links between Saddam and Bin Laden, other than he supported him, along with many other Muslim States.
They parted in the streets of Palenstine in the aftermath of 9/11, yet Ms. Rice was there two weeks ago supporting the change of leadership of the PLO.
Palenstine [Isreael] isn't an oil rich area, coincidence?

Gobsmacked · 24-03-2005, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

They parted in the streets of Palenstine in the aftermath of 9/11, yet Ms. Rice was there two weeks ago supporting the change of leadership of the PLO.
Palenstine [Isreael] isn't an oil rich area, coincidence?

I think the Israel/Palestine issue is a whole different ball game and oil or the lack thereof doesn't come into it. Certain countries have a lot to answer for regarding the history of the state of Israel.

It took me a little while to realise that you were referring to celebrations on the streets in Palestine following 9/11. Yes there were signs of celebration there. I don't believe it was a politically organised celebration and it may well not have been representative. That's the problem with news. We sometimes only see a biased view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIPAX

Why bother? You have spoken now.. Put everyone in there place and told them whats what.. While the rest of us where having a debate you wade in telling us how it is.. Not how you think it is or your opinion on anyhting.. just wade in shouting the odds.

What is wrong with you? You put forward your opinion, Tealeaf puts forward his. Suddenly you declare that by his having done so he has put paid to the whole debate! Was this because he disagreed with you? Surely the very fact of him disagreeing makes it more of a debate rather than less - or do you really mean that you expect everyone to agree with your point of view?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busman747

There may be an underlying factor concocted by the USA and UK, but at the end of the day, the more rebellious countries in the Middle East are becoming a REAL threat to the Western world. If it wasn't us that have intervened it would be the Chinese or one of the Arab countries themselves. If we hadn't stopped Saddam when he invaded Kuwait it was accepted by all that his next "conquest" would have been Saudi Arabia! Where would it have stopped?

I'm inclined to agree with you. I do believe that there is a potential danger to the western world and prefer to have US/UK intervention rather than Chinese or Arabic.

garinda · 24-03-2005, 00:57

Palestine is a different issue.
The point being made , quite simply was that the US/UK aliance turns a blind eye to some unsavoury Muslim extremism depending on their natural wealth or strategic placing re: oil fields.

KiTChener · 24-03-2005, 01:15

My son said it reminded him of n.Ireland.[/QUOTE]

So many parallels...
Why don't we just put our guys on Border Patrol, let nobody in or out, & let the ba****ds fight amongst themselves..

garinda · 24-03-2005, 01:19

A good idea, or better still leave them to fight amongst themselves without us there, so no British troops will be in danger.

Bazf · 24-03-2005, 02:14

Thats why we have to be there, if they fight amongest themselves you will get another dictatorship, the reason Saddam was allowed to take power and keep it was because the UK was more intrested in selling arms to him then the atrocities he was commiting, gasing the marsh arabs was only a tip of the iceberg, ethnic cleansing was going on through out his regime and when we went in to Kuwait after the first Gulf War I was disposing of british weapons. As for turning a blind eye because of oil the British and Americans are well respected through out the middle east and the only country where they have no agreements are Iran, not the greatest oil producer in the world but still got a lot more then Bharain or Oman where you will be treated better then you are in your own country.Don't get sucked in by mass media coverage after dealing with them during tfgw I can assure you if there is no story they will make one up.

garinda · 24-03-2005, 02:26

There were human rights attrocities committed by Saddam. There are also lots of dictatorial regimes [usually poor ones] throughout the world were this newly formed US/UK 'world police' seem to take no interest at all. Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, to name three, all of whom aren't rich in oil reserves.
We also have good diplomatic and arms trade links with Saudia Arabia, an absolute Monarchist state one step removed from a dictatorship, with an appalling human rights record, and known links to Islamic terrorism.

Bazf · 24-03-2005, 03:09

Saudia Arabia has arms contracts with the US/UK, France, Germany, Australia, Russia and China so as part of a global arms trade we would be stupid to ignore it, at last count it was worth over 35 million to the UK which funds much of the goverment spending such things as hospitals, the national health service etc.
We could of course chose who we want to deal with by putting certain criteria on them such as do as we do, who would that leave us to deal with?
A country with a Monarch, a country with out the death penalty, a country that lets immigrants in with out having to learn the language, a country that stops hunting animals but allows culls. So who can we trade with....... Canada wow we are not going to get very rich.

garinda · 24-03-2005, 04:01

l have said nothing against ceasing trading with countries with poor human rights records.
When we went into this war it was on the pretence of fighting terrorism post 9/11, and stopping an evil dictator. Again l want to point out there are lots of dictatorships evil or otherwise that the US/UK 'world police' seem to ignore, basically because they aren't oil rich or strategically placed in relation to oil feilds.

Busman747 · 24-03-2005, 09:46

How public opinion changes! After the Gulf war, the concensus of opinion in this country was that we should not have pulled out but should have carried on to Bagdad.

Second time round and this is what we did......A case of Damned if you do..and Damned if you don't

WillowTheWhisp · 24-03-2005, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

l have said nothing against ceasing trading with countries with poor human rights records.

Unfortunately trade sanctions tend to hurt the innocent people in those countries far more than they hurt the politicians.

garinda · 24-03-2005, 10:44

l agree Willow it is the poor people that suffer not the governments.

[Hope you both are having a good holiday xxx]

WillowTheWhisp · 24-03-2005, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

[Hope you both are having a good holiday xxx]

We're not having a holiday. We came back to give the field time to dry out and to get on with a few things here in the meanwhile -- only to discover that "few things" have turned into "major things"

(Apologies for thread wander.)