Home Politics and Debate
Exciting news! Join our watch club and get free access to NOW for 1 month

When you hear they're parading British POW's on t.v.

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately it has reached the point where you cannot believe a single word either of the fighting sides utters. The Iraqis say it was an Allied missile (which they were going to do regardless of the truth) and Bush and Blair's governments continue releasing their half-baked statements saying it wasn't them and it had probably been a malfunctioning Iraqi missile.

    There was a time when I would have believed my side to tell the truth (or at least admit they don't know the truth) but after:
    1. The Taziz "desertion"
    2. the 8,000-strong Iraqi division “surrender”
    3. the massive chemical plant "find"
    4. the 120-strong tank division heading south and being destroyed (in fact it was 3)
    5. The "revolt" in Basra
    6. and the “execution” claims

    all in 12 days of war or so... the Allies have put themselves in a position where every word, every claim has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

    So I'm now relaying on weighing up claims from both sides against each other, but mainly on the reports from independent journalists for what might be the truth.

    Robert Fisk was as the scene of the second market bombing and collected a piece of wreckage from the missile with a serial number on it. And from it would seem that the missile had come from the Allies, not the Iraqis. He asked the Americans to check the serial number against their records but they have not found the time to do so yet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diplomacy failed. But is war the best we can do in 2003? Even when the weapons are advanced...killing each other seems primative.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Diplomacy didnt fail, Bush failed diplomacy. Blame this rush to war on corrupt greedy self interest in our almighty administration and their excessively funded war machine, don't blame diplomacy - it would have taken longer, but then why the rush if not because the election timetable can't wait.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    clandestine,

    12 years of UN diplomacy failed. The time for talk is over and the time for action is here. The Iraqis have just finished beating and murdering a 15 year old girl for taking chocolate from British soldiers. Lovely folks,eh?

    It is about far more than oil my friend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are not lovely at all. In fact they are every bit as nasty as 15 years ago- no, in fact they were a lot nastier 15 years ago- but funnily enough I don't recall any Western governments crying over anyone being shot (let alone being gassed with US made chemicals) at the time.

    As for UN diplomacy... it's as good as UN members want it to be. Israel has been in breach of UN resolutions for nearly four decades. If we were to apply the same formula as with Iraq, the US should have invaded Israel about 28 years ago. No doubt it has slipped your rulers' minds. In the case of Iraq perhaps things would have worked a bit better had the sanctions been scrapped a long time ago, in view that they were not working in any conceivable way- other than causing the deaths of 500,000 children that is. Or if the US and the UK had abandoned their unauthorised no-fly zones, which effectively became one constant bombardment for 11 years, surely one of the longest in the history of mankind. Or if half the inspectors in 1998 hadn't turned out to be on the CIA's payroll.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US can't invade Israel Al, Washington has been tightly controlled by zionists for decades. Little hope for a change in that policy area, not with guys like Richard Perle et. al. so well entrenched in the system.

    You believe what you choose Murph, or perhaps I should say what youve been well conditioned by repeated rhetorical bombardment from the most effective spin machine in the world. Diplomacy didnt fail, Bush failed the diplomatic process and resorted to arrogant presumtpion and for that we will all be in an even greater global mess in years if not decades to come.

    And be sure Ill be there to remind you how gullible you were to have trusted these thugs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Murph the Surf
    clandestine,

    12 years of UN diplomacy failed. The time for talk is over and the time for action is here. The Iraqis have just finished beating and murdering a 15 year old girl for taking chocolate from British soldiers. Lovely folks,eh?

    It is about far more than oil my friend.

    You just can't get this idea of labelling whole nations and peoples out of your head can you, do you not see the obvious flaws?

    Why do the pro-war bunch talk about the 12 years as if there was consistent pressure to get Saddam to comply for this whole time when there obviously wasn't.

    The initial inspectors actually did therir jobs rather well, destroyed a lot of weapons....

    Then the attention span waned a little then you come back and put pressure on for 2 months not 12 years then say you need to go to war, why the hurry?

    We have fucked that region about, no wonder they hate us..........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe in diplomacy...war is horrible... I do not believe in the UN.
    You forgot the no fly zones Toadborg. Multi-national companies from around the world undermined the sanctions...they were a joke. And the US was getting oil below market value from Syria...so this war isn't about oil either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes the sanctions were a joke, but for different reasons than you are thinking of.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pnj, yes we were getting oil on the cheap, but our companies were and are not in control of that production and the amounts being received through those underhanded deals (concerning which, by the way, you should be scutinising Cheney and his connections if you wish to be true to your moral rhetoric) were paltry and in no way sufficient to lessen dependency on Saudi/OPEC oil purchases.

    This war is about control of the oil and thus the determination of how much is released onto world markets as well as the revenues gleaned from such control.

    Whether you choose to accept that makes little difference to the realities of the situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    ... half-baked statements saying it wasn't them and it had probably been a malfunctioning Iraqi missile...

    Can I ask why it is so believable that a US missile went astray, but not an Iraqi one?


    @Toadborg. Those eyewitnesses who "heard" the plane, could they have been Iraqi? Wouldn't the Iraqis have been firing a missile at the plane? Could that missile have malfuntioned?

    Like I have said before, neither side will tell the whole Truth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've always have said either side is untrustworthy as each other. The likeness of an American missile rather than an Iraqi one causing the carnage comes from independent journalists' reports on the ground.

    Only experts can confirm for sure the nationality of the missile concerned after forensic tests, but from witness accounts and the debris found at the sites all seems to point out to an allied missile. Not least the brunt force of the explosion, much more likely to be caused by a 1,000 lb bomb than by a piss-poor anti-aircraft missile (which needs to be light, fast and only requires a small warhead).

    There is also the serial number reported by journalist Robert Fisk (link below) which also seems to point out to a US-made device.

    It appeared rather obvious to every independent witness who was at the scenes that those explosions were caused by allied bombs. The allies are not doing themselves any favours by trying to brush aside those claims and say that it was "probably an Iraqi missile" without providing any kind of evidence to support their allegations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent


    Can I ask why it is so believable that a US missile went astray, but not an Iraqi one?


    @Toadborg. Those eyewitnesses who "heard" the plane, could they have been Iraqi? Wouldn't the Iraqis have been firing a missile at the plane? Could that missile have malfuntioned?

    Like I have said before, neither side will tell the whole Truth.

    Fair enough, i will await the official report before judging.........

    (though to be pedantic it would still be our fault if it were one of their missiles because they wouldn't have been firinf it if we weren't invading them.....)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg


    Fair enough, i will await the official report before judging.........

    (though to be pedantic it would still be our fault if it were one of their missiles because they wouldn't have been firinf it if we weren't invading them.....)

    Im also waiting for the official report but im leaning toward an iraqi missile now...I previously thought it was US but having seen some examples of the damage US munitions cause, i dont believe that the damage was consistant.

    As for fault..Well we wouldnt be invading if saddam had abided by the ceasefire terms. Those terms wouldnt have been imposed if he hadnt of invaded kuwait, he wouldnt have invaded kuwait if it hadnt been partitioned by the british etc etc etc..How far back do you wanna go with the blame?

    Does the same logic apply to US inflicted deaths? If Saddam had complied fully with UN resolutions, the US wouldnt have killed those children in the van yesterday.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    The likeness of an American missile rather than an Iraqi one

    Unless the US sold them the missiles in the first place ;)
    The allies are not doing themselves any favours by trying to brush aside those claims and say that it was "probably an Iraqi missile" without providing any kind of evidence to support their allegations.

    Short of getting into Baghdad and examining the debris themselves how are they to do this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps by admitting they don't know the truth about what happened rather than trying to blame the Iraqis for everything from the loss of Paradise to the extinction of the dodo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Perhaps by admitting they don't know the truth about what happened rather than trying to blame the Iraqis for everything from the loss of Paradise to the extinction of the dodo.

    Neither do the Iraqis.

    Again you criticise one, but not the other ;)

    Seriously, you assume that if the US said "actually we don't know" that you and the media would be satisfied. Somehow I find that hard to believe - claims would be made that they did know, but as they were guilty they just wouldn't admit...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Again you criticise one, but not the other ;)

    Seriously, you assume that if the US said "actually we don't know" that you and the media would be satisfied. Somehow I find that hard to believe - claims would be made that they did know, but as they were guilty they just wouldn't admit...
    Someone's got to play devils advocate ;)
    Fair point I suppose though. That's the problem with being cynical, but someone's got to do it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog



    As for fault..Well we wouldnt be invading if saddam had abided by the ceasefire terms. Those terms wouldnt have been imposed if he hadnt of invaded kuwait, he wouldnt have invaded kuwait if it hadnt been partitioned by the british etc etc etc..How far back do you wanna go with the blame?

    Does the same logic apply to US inflicted deaths? If Saddam had complied fully with UN resolutions, the US wouldnt have killed those children in the van yesterday.

    Well your the one taking the steps back there.....

    The obvious consequence of violating UN resolutions is not wars and civillians casualties, these are the obvious consequences of an invasion........

    But as you say it ius probably not a worthwhile debate to have.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    these are the obvious consequences of an invasion

    They're also the consequences of a culture, and the only culture on earth, that embraces human sacrifice in the form of suicide bombs. And the consequences of an immoral leader who totally put his army within the civilian population.

    Can't have it both ways. I was relieved that our soldiers protected themselves against a plausible threat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The honour of death in battle is an ancient tradition among most cultures as far as I know.

    Remember that the suicide bomb attack in iraq was on troops not on civillians.

    You really think the Iraqi army is going to wander out into the desert to be massacred, why the hell should they?
Sign In or Register to comment.