Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Flashman's Ghost wrote: »
Who pretends it was for the good of the people of Iraq?
It was because the US and UK feared Saddam was a destabilising influence on the Middle East and had WMD - they were wrong, but that's by the by.
That's been the public reason stated by a succession of US and UK diplomats and politicians in the UN in the run-up to the war. Removing a rather nasty dictator was simply a boycott. If he'd been clear and up front that he had no WMD's he still be in power
And as I've said Saddam was not an ally of the West (as some US secretary of State said about Hitler and Stalin during WW2 'its a shame they both can't loose') and that was our position with Iraq pre-1990. We supplied Iraq with some photo-intelligence and Iran with some spares - making sure neither side got the upper hand.
But to be honest I've have more sympathy with those who cry about moral foreign policies if they had cheered when the US removed Saddam and congratulate it on its tough economic sanctions against Castro (another regime which has got the fair share of blood on its hands). Otherwise it seems a little bit selective and based more on anti-US feeling than a genuine care for the victims.
Aladdin wrote: »
Given that the US not only doesn't apply such boycotts to other equally awful regimes (or much worse ones) but actually supports and finances them, they deserve about fuck all praise for their boycott of Cuba.
carlito wrote: »
If there is one state that puts paid to any claim of the US and UK to have an ethical foreign policy, this is it.
budda wrote: »
On a side note New Labour have never said that they wanted to have, or do have an 'ethical foreign policy' - What was really said was that their 'foreign policy will have an ethical dimension'.
Disillusioned wrote: »
I thought you supported boycotting any regime you believed to have a questionable human rights record. Or were you just singling out Israel before?
Yerascrote wrote: »
What's a conspiraloon?