If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Jack Straw on Lib Dem Iraq policy.
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I dont know whether any of you heard the debate in the commons about the re-deployment, but Jack Straw said something thats truely classic;
"We know full well from the Liberal Democrats that their policy would mean that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad today. Given the current situation in Iraq, are the Liberal Democrats seriously saying to the families of people like Ken Bigley that they would not take action against terrorists and take the necessary action to see democratic elections taking place in Iraq? Do they or do they not want free and democratic elections in Iraq?"
Source; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm041021/debtext/41021-11.htm#41021-11_spnew1
"We know full well from the Liberal Democrats that their policy would mean that Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad today. Given the current situation in Iraq, are the Liberal Democrats seriously saying to the families of people like Ken Bigley that they would not take action against terrorists and take the necessary action to see democratic elections taking place in Iraq? Do they or do they not want free and democratic elections in Iraq?"
Source; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm041021/debtext/41021-11.htm#41021-11_spnew1
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I'm reading the debate now and its quite interesting - I hate Geoff Hoon (who made the statement from which you are quoting, not Jack Straw) even more now!
I guess my point was the over reaction, and of course the over sight that had we not gone to Iraq then Ken Bigley would quite probably be safe at home.
I never thought I'd see the day!
It's a shame that the real villains are never in Iraq. Nobody would mind the terrorists if it was Hoon's head they were lopping off instead of sopme poor innocent schmuck.
But anyway, Hoon is indeed a cunt and a cynical manipulator. He should be the one going to Liverpool to apologise to the Bigley family.
lets face it ...if saddam was still in power ...there would be no hostages at all.
the scouser would still be alive and probably happy to be wrking in iraq.
there would be no terrorism in iraq.
saddam would still be building his palaces ...his sons would sti;ll be torturing and raping people who got in the way but ...your average factory owner or shopkeeper or taxi driver or window cleaner ...would be working in a safe environment and providing for their families.
the kids would be going to schol and playing in the streets.
the electricity and water would be clean and reliable ...the shopping centres and markets would be buzzing with activity.
plus ...we wouldn't have to be considering invading iran or urging the israelis to bomb irans nuclear facilities ...we could have armed saddam and got him to do it for us like last time.
and all would be reasonably well.
Where on earth do you get this stuff
do you know anything about iraq before we stuck our noses in ...no thought not.
big shopping malls and markets. traffic jams to rival londons.
night clubs discos bars ...
small businesses and big businesses ...all thriving.
working class middle class upper class housing and very nice suberbs. house prices were still rising in baghdad on the eve of invasion cos most people thought it was a bluff or it would be a small scale affair.
i get this stuff from a place called reality.
What the fuck are you going on about
for some strange reason i was trying to fucking answer your question ya plank.
And my question was?
The present paradigm of thought is wrapped in inflated emotive claims which themselves were inspired by long anxious political opponents (chief amongst whom are Ahmed Chalabi and his presently ascendant cousin Allawi and their INC/INA cohorts) who have hungered for the restoration of their power and prestige since their parents fled the country for the sanctuary of Britain and the US.
Saddam, for all his evil toward those he perceived as a direct threat (like every other dictator and indeed our own governments should their power be threatened from within), built Iraq into a gem of Middle Eastern development and secular culture, education and commerce. His critical error and that which actually marked his downfall was his nationalisation of Iraq's oil production, revocation of US and British oil conglomerate control, and ultimately his decision to apply the Euro standard rather than the cheaper dollar standard for oil sales to the West. Add to that his refusal to limit production quotas on demand from other OPEC producers (due to Iraq's heavy debt incurred fighting Washington's war against Iran) and his ousting was sealed.
Of course its far easier to justify the visitation of yet more war, destruction, invasion and occupation (in order to repeat our failed efforts of the past to install a pliant client regime) by redefining history devoid of its many interconnecting interests and agendas. The vast majority wont have the scope of years to recall firsthand all that has been and occurred in previous decades leading to the present situation.
I would correct you though on one point. If Saddam remained in power, Bigley wouldnt even have been there in the first place as he was one of many who came to answer high paying contract offers resulting solely from our invasion and conquest (thus reopening Iraq to private western corporate profit and control).
just one wee question, why do you keep coming back? you were banned over a year ago, that does strike me as very very... sad. [/thread hijack]
i'm a wee bit full of the alcohol ...big respect to you clan ...the voice of reality ...look at the replys before my post ...no one realy cares or understands ...
hic!
all power to you mate.
This is why the money becomes such an enticement to western contractors like Bigley regardless of the vast inequity compared to the local wages which it raises in the eyes of the local populace.
It's an interesting angle, but somehow it doesn't quite tie up with the "reality" of a country decimated by sanctions, where thousands of kids were dying every week because of a lack of clean water, where electricity was off more of the time than on, where the after effects of depleted uranium were still being felt, as Iraq wasn't allowed to import the technology to clean it up, in fact it was a struggle just to get graphite for pencils.
Are you referring to the period before the "first Gulf War"? cos I guess that would make more sense.
Yes, beginning with Reagan & George Bush Sr. (Iran-Iraq War included) and continuing through to the chimp.
Note: It was in fact our decade+ of sanctions, maintained by Washington via the UN (to appear a mere thrid party) which destroyed all the development that had been achieved in Iraq under Saddam.
yes ...mate before we stuck our noses in.
all the above you mention is true ...our great leaders have caused suffering a thousand fold more than saddam ever did.
i have a dreadful hangover.
Morning rolly, how's the head?
ouch! don't shout.
sorry buddy
I love the arguement by both Bush and Blair that because you didn't support the war, you can't possibly win, mainly because it's not true. You are more determined to be in and out in the shortest possible time, without turning your back on the problem at hand when you hold the opinion of the Lib Dems and Kerry (as far as I can tell).
If you want to follow me to the UK troops supporting US troops I'll continue to post my thoughts.
we are getting dragged ever deeper in which is worrying.
i don't believe enforced democracy has a hope in hell of working ...especialy when that democracy is a complete sham ...what if the people voted for saddam?
we have created a problem we seem to have no answers to.
If they must have a civil war to arrive at a self determined arrangement or to achieve the ascendency of an indigenous strongman capable of unifying the disparate tribal interests, who are we to dictate that it cannot be?
Let's get this straight, IT IS A SOVEREIGN NATION. Our own histories are themselves repleat with civil war(s), internal tensions and strife which were part and parcel of the development of our nations and no other nation had nor assumed the mantle of arbiter over what could or could not be in such contexts.
Again, I argue that to the claim "we must stay" does more to maintain the present patriotic uprising of average Iraqis (duly renamed "terrorists", "insurgents" or "religious fanatics" by our leaders and their media mouthpieces so as to dehumanise and delegitimatise their selfsame right to defend their homeland against foreign aggression and occupation) than it will ever help to achieve peace.
Once you acknowledge that the invasion was based on lies and an actual agenda not transparently made known to the public (as has long been the penchant certainly of US and UK warfare), then you need to follow through consistently to the logical conclusion that our very continued presence remains no less criminal and imperialistic than the invasion itself.
we have created the situation where a muslim extremist group could easily win that civil war which would be a disaster for the western worlds very survival.
theres enough hate out there for the oil to be switched off ...all over the middle east.
the argument that they won't do that cos they need the revenue doesn't work either ...if it means going back to the stone age then some of them are willing to go there ...and dragging us along too ...would be a very sweet victory for them.
All of which was obvious before the war was started - and both Blair and Bush received specific "intelligence" about what would happen if they effected a regime change - they preferred instead to go with the other "intelligence" - about WMDs and us being killed in 45 minutes ..................
And, the more 'we' try and clamp down on the militants, the more militants there will be, and the greater the danger to all of us.
Neat huh?