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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Clandestine, what the fuck is wrong with your ability of comprehension?
How hard is it to digest that displaying issues and plans, have the tendency to do more harm than good?
I'm sorry, but you seem to be totally detached from what's going on, in spite of the "all-knowing and almighty" position you claim to have within the EU or Nato.
Remember the lies that fueled the Vietnam War (as merely one example) were also kept from public scrutiny by successive administrations until they finally emerged 20 years later to have not been national security issues at all but big money interests and powermongering.
Simply because I work in political circles does not mean that I or any others are not highly critical of the lack of transparency in government. Perhaps you should try being concerned with it as well. Only when sufficient percentages of respective nation's citizens begin caring again will leaders be forced to account for what they do in our name.
Tall order, perhaps. Does that mean those who do have concern should not continue to try to rally people to pay attention and pay more than lip service to their civic duty? Well that is up to each person to decide, but democracy and freedom are only as real as the effort people are willing to make to see that those in power do not betray those principles in pursuit of their own self-interests over those of the broader public.
Welcome back Greenhat. I've felt like a voice in the wilderness recently...
What makes me laugh is that it is all presented as FACT...whilst everything coming out of the US is presented as lies...
I have no doubt that oil is part of the drive in this conflict, but it isn't the whole story, much as Clandestine would have us believe.
Unless of course, Hans Blix has been appointed to the board of an oil company now, in light of his recent comments and the recent findings in Iraq...
BTW Clandestine, when we are claiming contacts, I need to tell you about a close personal friend of mine who is an UN weapon inspector. Much like other servicemen he won't say much about his job, but in the last few weeks he has left me in no doubt as to what Saddam is likely to have - based on what he saw in the past. Still he can find out for himself as he is due to fly out in a couple of days...
Didnt realise you were so enamoured of Greeny's position on world affairs, guess your claimed centrism is slipping somewhat?
Strange that one would report what he has witnessed with his own eyes, and be dismissed as lies and propaganda, while the one making those claims has not been there to witness, isn't it?
A bit like the "monitors" that Greenhat speaks of?
Imagine that...
There is the possibility that oil is a collateral issue, pounced upon by opportunists, from either side of the discussion, and not the central issue...
Clandestine as the Conspiracy Theory Potentate? Who woulda thunk it?
What unsupported allegation?
That chemical weapons shells have been found, that nuclear program documents have been found, that neither were in the supposed disclosure document, or that Hans Blix claims that Iraq isn't assisting the UN weapon inspectors?
I'm not enamoured with his view, much as I'm not with yours. What I am pleased to see (thanks to Greenhat's return) is someone else giving a different perspective on things rather than the consistent barrage of "This is all about oil" which comes from you and Aladdin.
Like I said, and maintain, there is some truth is what you both have said, but it isn't the whole story...
That I like to see both view presented is surely proof of my centrist stance...
My stated position, on this issue is that I support what Bush is trying to do. That doesn't make me right wing. Hell, it's not like I support much else of what he does...
Man of Kent: to pursue that is TOTALLY non-PC, as it is inconvenient to the agenda of furthering a conspiracy theory. How barbaric of you.
Sitting in the middle on the fence could be injurious to your arse...
But again, If Saddam is found to finally be in material breach then i say let the exiles go back armed and fight it out amongst themselves and bring our boys home.
What you are really saying is that you support Saddam Hussein, because that is EXACTLY what the above comment means in the end.
The crux of the matter is this: Saddam is not being targeted because he or his WMDs- if they exist at all- are a threat to world peace (India, Pakistan, N. Korea, Israel anyone?). He's not being targeted because of his human rights record; the US doesn't care much about those so far as the country in question is of use. He is targeted because is on America's interest to do so. You might think it's right to make war on another country for this. I don't.
You are right, the rockets represent the capacity to delivery chemical agents. Why retain them unless you have something to put in them?
No, that comes from the Iraqi admission that they had "forgotten" to include them in their declaration.
Far from it, because soothsayers will just say (as you have) that this isn't enough. So the more evidence that he collects the stronger the case. And he will find more.
Of course, some conspiracists will just say that it has been planted by the CIA (or a representative of Exxon!)
Jeez, and you have a go at me! Let's get someone else to fight the war for us.
That said, isn't that what most of Europe and the UN will do anyway...
I personally do not think my country has any place compounding the criminal complicity that lead to this whole mess in the first place with a full scale invasion which will create even greater suffering for the Iraqi peopl as well as more widespread destabilisation for the whole region.
If Saddam is be ousted, let it be done from within, such as backing the recent Saudi plan to turn the Iraqi senior military staff against their leader. Im sure apart from fear of torture or execution there isnt much to keep them loyal to Saddam.
Beyond the war, it's the peace that will be the problem with a tribal country that has no history of democracy.
And this would be done without any bloodshed, would it?
Oh, apart from the fear of torture.
Apart from the fear of being electrocuted, beaten, hung on a meat hook, perhaps hanged, maybe shot...
Apart from the knowledge that their family is likey to suffer the same fate.
Nothing to worry about then...
:rolleyes:
Get real pal, sometimes i think youll find the most ridiculous comparatives just to take an opposing stance. Im sure youre intelligent enough to tell the difference in dynamic and in consequential public perception between the two.
Yes, one would have massive instability because neighbouring countires would get involved - unless you don't think that Turkey, Syria and Iran would be concerned. Especially when you consider the Turkey/Kurds issues - and trust me in your scenario the Kurds would rise.
The other would be totally dominated by the US/UK...now I know this would cause instability, but what you suggested would have several factions all fighting for power - miltarily. The US lead invasion would have their lead militarily and then a political approach to the next Govt.
And sometimes you show breathtaking arrogance in your responses - several recently. Which is something I've come to expect from a "diplomat".
Look at the dismissive way in which you talk about fear of torture...
If you want people to rise they will need the confidence that, unlike last time, when they rise they will succeed. What happened when it failed last time - gosh, surely not torture...
And why did it fail last time? Because the US/UK/Allies refused to get involved militarily...
So you think that a US/UK political solution to another sovereign state's crises will offer stability? lol. Come now MoK, you should be able to tell from all the other meddling we have done in the region just how such an imposed government will be viewed by not only the Iraqi people but by leaders and public alike throughout the region.
So once you head down that road what next eh? Perhaps you think we should invade and dictate to every country how they are to live and function? That's an interesting and rather odd perspective for someone who I presume values democracy. It just doesnt wash im afraid.
Meanwhile, as we determine for the world in our current pedantic style, what we think is best for them by force of arms, you actually believe that this will inspire greater love for the west and its ideals? lol.
You truly amaze me.
No, and I did say so.
But civil war is not going to offer stability. The history of that country proves that.
Like I said the US will need to offer military back-up, otherwise wither Saddma will prevail or Iraq will decend into civl war just like Afghanistan did after the Soviet withdrawl
We do, just with most countries this is done by negotiation, arms sales or investment.
See USSR for details...
Why should US tax payers endure the burden of supporting Bush's mad diversion from the real WoT to conduct his private vendetta war on Saddam (albeit under ever so convenient allegations of "imminent threat" and using the international framework to give it justification) only to then be forced to maintain Iraq as a protectorate? This is not I suspect want Americans want and when the full scope of what Bush has been allowed to do has come home to roost I think even you will be railing at how much worse off the situation has become.
Time will tell.
As for what you claim to be examples of control in terms of negotiations, arms sales and investments...
Firstly negotiation presumes two perspectives achieving compromise, not military domination and imposition of one nation's will over another.
Secondly, arms sales and investment both presume mutual gain for both parties according to their interests. No control per se contained in that since most nations sell arms or conduct bi-lateral investments with numerous other nations.
Interestingly enough, since you bring up the point of arms sales, don't you find it ratther hypocritical to hear the rhetoric of the evils of NK in terms of its practices of armament proliferation whilst both the US and UK proliferate considerably more weaponry than NK could ever hope to?