Home Politics & Debate

Saudi Arabia arrests ten liberal reformists on terror offences

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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. The Soviets on the other hand supplied Iraq with the vast majority of its weaponary (with some Chinese and a bit of French)

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who pretends it was for the good of the people of Iraq?
    Er... the US and British government, and practically all remaining people who still think the war was the right thing to do.
    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.
    You don't really believe that do you?
    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
    You should be taking some of these mate

    NP-7178.jpg

    because your memory is failing you ;)

    Not only did Saddam said very clearly and about 750 million times that he did no longer had a single WMD (as it was the case), but he allowed UN inspectors to do their job and it was the UN's verdict that Saddam did not have WMDs left.

    How much clearer do you want it?
    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.
    You're kidding right?
    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.
    Why would anyone want to congratulate the US government on the most cruel, disproportionate and, crucially, completely pointless boycott in human history?

    It has achieved precisely fuck all regarding the Cuban regime and has only succeeded in making life for Cubans indescribably hard.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Saudi Arabia's regime and its domestic policies are abhorrent. However, the Saudi regime poses very little threat to anybody. And whilst facing hostility and threats from other countries in the region Saudi Arabia is a very valuable ally. Iran meanwhile is a growing threat; its aggressive rhetoric, expansionist desires and fanatical leadership threaten us. And trusting the Iranians with nuclear weapons seems as reckless as letting al qaeda loose in Heathrow with a ton of dynamite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    I thought you supported boycotting any regime you believed to have a questionable human rights record. Or were you just singling out Israel before?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    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'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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'.

    And unfortunately the man to have declared this approach and had any intention of sticking to it now lies six feet under :o

    As for "questionable human rights records," almost every country on earth has a questionable human rights record, its a matter of degree. In some cases at least partially justifiable by their specific situation. For instance the UK during WW2 had a pretty awful human rights record, but this could be justified because it was faced with significant external threats.

    The example of Cuba has been given. I'd say the US has worse human rights record, at least in the last 5 years. It, after all, holds hundreds of men of many nationalities without trial (in Cuba itself!), and submits them to treatment which I think any reasonable person would consider "torture." Cuba has faced "significant" external threats from its largest neighbour for some 50 years - whilst posing no threat to surrounding countries itself - including invasions, state-sponsered terrorism, and over 600 assassination attempts on its leader from the CIA. Under that level of external threat, I'd say some human rights abuses are almost inevitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought you supported boycotting any regime you believed to have a questionable human rights record. Or were you just singling out Israel before?
    You probably won't believe me but I would not wish Israel or any other country to be subjected to such extents. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Malnutrion and terrible hardships are a no-no in my book.

    I don't have a problem with subjecting all regimes with a poor human rights record to various sanctions appropriate and measured to the regime's actions. I have a problem with overdoing it and being highly selective- both of which the US is guilty of.

    To be honest a total cultural and sporting boycott is probably more effective in putting pressure on a regime, as well as avoding to make life harder for ordinary people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    What's a conspiraloon? ;)

    See under dictionary heading for "Clandestine" ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.