homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are right on the historical chronology, Ken, and, as someone who claims to be a history buff, i should have known better. I stand corrected.

Perhaps Western Europe would be more accurate. (And after straining my brain to make sure i haven't overlooked something else, i hope i haven't!)

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
An assassin's bullet could have achieved that.

There are two things at fault here…

1) The assumption that Saddam Hussein could have been targeted. Just hours before the first Gulf War started CentCom received intelligence that Saddam was in a particular palace, so they launched a cruise missile strike on the palace.

It was a dry hole of course. He wasn’t there when the missiles hit.

This was intelligence received when the whole might of the US and UK intelligence gathering forces were focused on him and his military, hours before the coalition was due to start the bombing campaign.

If they couldn’t target him with that level of capability, what makes you think he could have been targeted by an assassin?

It is not easy to do in a completely dictatorial police state like Saddam’s Iraq. Which of his body doubles would have been killed instead?

It’s easy to SAY of course, but not easy to do, no matter how appealing it is.

2) Even if it could have been made to happen, it would have left the Ba’ath party in power, which would have meant that someone else with a vested interest in remaining in power would have taken the reigns, possibly one of his sons.

Either way it would have liberated no-one. The Ba’ath Party structures would still have been in place and would have been used to oppress the population just as badly as under Saddam. Possibly even worse because the leadership would realise that they could be targeted like Saddam, and may well have redoubled their efforts to suppress any kind of anti-Ba’athist activities.

Simplistic “solutions” like yours only work in Hollywood films I’m afraid, and never do in the real world.

The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.

Keep digging! There must be a pony in there somewhere. Doesn't it seem self-serving to say you can increase human suffering by quite a lot provided that at some distant point a century hence things might be better?

It also seems fairly unrealistic to hypothesize that the Baath regime would still be in power a century from now, but not that the Maliki government will continue on its current trajectory for the same timespan. Why the difference?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by deano:
Simplistic “solutions” like yours only work in Hollywood films I’m afraid, and never do in the real world.


I accept that mine was a simplistic comment. No doubt borne out of the simplistic propaganda we were all exposed to in the inter-Gulf-war period . IE. the demonisation of Saddam.

The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.


I agree in part with that statement .
Odd that we didn't apply the same token of logic to China after Tiananmen Square . It's also worth noting that regime change was brought about in the USSR without the West firing a shot.

Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn't mean they WON’T come.


Let us keep hoping then . Ten years of bloodshed with casualties running into hundreds of thousands are well outside the parameters most were working on, not just me .
Maybe I'm just the sensitive sort but I find that more a source of regret than comfort.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.

Keep digging! There must be a pony in there somewhere. Doesn't it seem self-serving to say you can increase human suffering by quite a lot provided that at some distant point a century hence things might be better?

It also seems fairly unrealistic to hypothesize that the Baath regime would still be in power a century from now, but not that the Maliki government will continue on its current trajectory for the same timespan. Why the difference?

It reminds me of the way some communists used to talk - yes, comrade, we acknowledge that life is shit right now, and that hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives, and there is corruption in government, but comrade, remember! In 20, 50, 100, years' time, we can be assured that life will be good, and it will be all worthwhile. Meanwhile, comrade, if you would just sign this confession, you will have helped us advance just a little more.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results.

If the side-effect is 100% guaranteed, can it really be said to be a side-effect?
Yes.
Example: Jobsworth has been employed by the Nazi occupation to pump water to the Nazi HQ. He has inadvertently overheard that there is a plot by La Resistance to poison the water. He's decided that the all-around safest thing to do is keep his head down, pretend he knows nothing, and do what he's paid for.
I think it's reasonable here to say that because he's doing exactly what he would be doing if he didn't know about the plot he doesn't intend to poison the Nazis. (There are various other counterfactual conditions that come into play.) This despite him knowing that he is poisoning the Nazis. Note that this does not make his attitude morally neutral.

quote:
But is that a reasonable expectation, and do they really take that kind of care? If not then what is happening is that they are bombing infrastructure+civilians, and using the infrastructure destruction as an excuse for taking out civilians. Seems to me.
I think there are distinctions to be made between using infrastructure bombing as an excuse to bomb civilians, bombing infrastructure without caring whether you bomb civilians, and bombing infrastructure while trying to minimise the harm to civilians. The middle one is still culpable, but not quite as culpable as the first.
Which one the Allied war effort was up to in the Gulf War I am not privy to; there doesn't seem any great effort to be made to avoid civilian casualties.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be frank, I don’t really know why I’m arguing here. I’m on the side that won!

We did invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam and secure the oil.

Why am I trying to defend it to people who are (a) on the losing side and therefore irrelevant, and (b) will never countenance that Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone.

I'm off to fill up the 4x4 with diesel (hope it's from Iraq, I do like to feel I'm doing my bit).

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437

 - Posted      Profile for malik3000   Author's homepage   Email malik3000   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Deano, i can't read your innermost thoughts and so this question is based on the reading of the content of the posts in this thread. Why do you have the signature you have, when the views you express are a fist-smash and a spitting in the face of Jesus? (Starting off with an expression of views that are the 180 degree opposite of Jesus' Golden Rule -- "Do unto others ..." in case you forgot.)

Earlier upthread you alledge that there are some on the Ship who "really hate" the U.S. I countered that for my own case at least. But, expressing the views you express, if any take your views to be an expression of U.S. views in general, can you blame them if they do hate the U.S.? And if you don't care, i return to the original question -- how can the content of the views you express be reconciled with the content of your signature. The impression, at least, is one of blasphemy.

P.S. where in the Christian Bible does it same that "Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone."?

[ 26. March 2013, 12:33: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.

Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a perversion of Christianity, isn't it? Of course, religion adapts to capitalism, and other social formations, and then pronounces that these things are 'Christian'. I just remembered 'these who have turned the world upside down', and laughed.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I'm off to fill up the 4x4 with diesel (hope it's from Iraq, I do like to feel I'm doing my bit).

'It's an ill wind that blows no-one any good'- A deano [Smile]

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Jesus' Golden Rule -- "Do unto others ..."

You know what, Malik? It seems to me that for me to walk more closely by Jesus' side and obey that teaching I am going to have to go and have my name removed from the voter registration. I've talked about it before and called the board of elections to ask how to do it, but I believe I need to go ahead and do it.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857

 - Posted      Profile for Sylvander   Author's homepage   Email Sylvander   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community. The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.

Look, if the German's code-name for their source is "Curveball", it's a pretty good indication they consider him a fabulist. There was a lot of propaganda along the lines of 'everyone really knows Saddam has WMDs, but no one will admit it because they're all cowards'. Do you have a reliable citation that any of the governments you named sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs capable of attacking other countries in 2003?
Er, the German Foreign Secretary at the time, much as I dislike him, to his credit publicly answered to Colin Powell's famous WMD speech in the UN: I don't believe your intelligence sources.
He stopped short of saying he believed Powell was consciously lying (which seems rather likely to me, seeing Blair certainly did).

Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

But you're forgetting some of the teachings of Jesus, aren't you? For example, 1. leveraged buyouts are OK, but you have to watch the debt/equity ratio; 2. Don't let the rag-heads control the oil, they are totally unreliable. I am just checking these quotes in the Bible, and will get back to you.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

"He" who? Saddam or Bush?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

Saddam invaded Kuwait and wanted to move on Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War in order to restrict the flow of oil to drive up prices. He was desperate to increase the revenue from his oil to rebuild Iraq's economy following on from the decade long Iran/Iraq war.

Kuwait and the other gulf states refused to raise the OPEC price of oil, and Hussein decided to force the issue by invading and controlling the supply himself.

Following on from that Hussein had the opportunity to sell as much Iraqui oil as he wanted but only to spend on food and medicines, not to go into his general treasury coffers to be spent on whatever such as building up his military again.

Hussein decided that he could take advantage of teh situation so he sold no oil, to deliberately inflict illness and starvation on his own people in the very real hope that some less "determined" types in the west would take the view that the sanctions ought to be lifted.

He almost succeeded.

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

Thank goodness for strong politicians who ignore the siren call of "progressives" bleating, for they will give away everything of value and righteousness to save one baby, completely ignoring who is actually killing the baby.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
He did succeed. Tony Blair couldn't bear murdering 100,000 Iraqi children a year by proxy after 10 years. Rumsfeld was just bored. Capitalism had to DO something.

What would Jesus' foreign policy have been?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.

[ 27. March 2013, 10:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.
Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

Hence he needed to invade Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
To be frank, I don’t really know why I’m arguing here. I’m on the side that won!

We did invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam and secure the oil.

Why am I trying to defend it to people who are (a) on the losing side and therefore irrelevant, and (b) will never countenance that Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place?

You "won", remember? Iraq is now the democratic, free-market utopia you wanted to establish, right? The country's been remade in the image you wanted.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.
Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

Hence he needed to invade Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.

You'll find that the "Debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war" was mitigated to a great extent by US military and economic aid, and Saudi economic during that war. Most of the Western nations and Gulf oil states aided Iraq.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

It's a strategy with a long history. For instance, I once came across an economist who estimated that the boost to the British economy from controlling the local government of Egypt was greater on a year-to-year comparison than was the direct rule of India.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

It's a strategy with a long history. For instance, I once came across an economist who estimated that the boost to the British economy from controlling the local government of Egypt was greater on a year-to-year comparison than was the direct rule of India.
A very interesting example is the 53 coup against Mossadeq in Iran, leading to the installation of the Shah. Often cited today in intelligence seminars as a prime example of blowback, since Iranians of course, remember it bitterly, since Mossadeq was democratically elected. And of course it lead to the revolution.

I don't know if they talk about blowback in relation to Iraq, but maybe they should.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.
Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

So? Even if it was - he didn't spend 'all of it on building up his military muscle'. You are arguing a counter-factual and the little evidence that exists points in the opposite direction.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

No, I said it was okay to invade a country like Iraq to free the people there from a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Anyone who disagrees with those sentiments needs to look at themselves.

Democracy and free-markets come as benefits!

And if you say "well, what about North Korea, Zimbabwe" etc. Then I agree and if it were up to me I would use military force there as well.

But one at a time eh.
To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like that, 'a good war in Zimbabwe'. Why stop there? The world's your oyster. It's wot Jesus would do.

[ 27. March 2013, 16:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No, I said it was okay to invade a country like Iraq to free the people there from a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Anyone who disagrees with those sentiments needs to look at themselves.

Yeah. Big improvement there. Remind me again why you're so sure Nouri al-Maliki is a non-murderous non-tyrant?

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Democracy and free-markets come as benefits!

Again, is Iraq a free-market democracy?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

Are you serously advocating murdering large numbers of peope just so the Tory party can win an election? Or is this just a wind-up?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But one at a time eh.
To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

What do you mean by 'finished'?

I don't think they've fully finished in Afghanistan, the place is still full of people hostile to us. Possibly even more so now we've marched up and down in front of them for a bit and shot their friends. That sort of thing tends to put people's backs up, even if they were pretty unbothered before.

Do you just mean, once they've invaded, taken a few towns, walked up and down a bit, shot some foreigners and blew up some buildings, that'll do. Time to go off and do the same with some different scenery.

What are you hoping to achieve with a 'good war'. Do you actually think its possible to march in, shoot the Bad Guys, replace them with nearby Good Guys and walk out to general applause.

Or do you think that causing death and destruction on a massive scale, ruining a countries infrastructure, government, and economy, somehow 'sorts them out' and stops them looking at us funny.

It'd be interesting to know what your view of the purpose of war is. What is your plan for fixing a hostile state, many miles from your own, just using a large number of soldiers who need to be constantly supplied at great cost and with extraordinary effort, who are in incredible danger just being there. What is the point of that cost, that effort, the deaths of our own soldiers? Has the invasion of Iraq made us safer by enough measurable difference to justify that cost. I didn't feel in any danger before we invaded them myself. They didn't have any weapons that could touch us, and no sign of wanting to. Did you feel you were in danger from them?

Personally I think war can be a necessary evil if its ends justify the means. You have to be very clear about what those ends are though, and how to get them, and if there is a quicker, cheaper and more efficient way of achieving those ends without war. Otherwise you're just killing people and making them suffer because you don't like them.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We did it in the Falklands ken.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Thank goodness for strong politicians who ignore the siren call of "progressives" bleating, for they will give away everything of value and righteousness to save one baby, completely ignoring who is actually killing the baby.

Many of us want to believe that what's happened in Iraq since 03 has been for the greater good . I think you may in the minority who do actually believe it.
So long as it's kept off our TV screens I imagine the silent majority don't give a stuff either way.

Like you say give it 50 or a 100 years . If the Middle East is still strife-ridden by then as least most of us won't be here to worry about it.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We did it in the Falklands ken.

The Falklands and Afghanistan were and are very different.

The Falklanders were 100% behind the UK government and the troops sent to expel the Argentinian forces. The military operation succeeded, but wouldn't have done if either of the aircraft carriers been sunk.

That isn't so in Afghanistan. This is our fourth war there and while the outcomes of the Second Afghan War (1879-82) and the Third (1919) were nowhere near as bloody as that of the First (1839-42), which ended with the retreat from Kabul and the bloody slaughter of almost all the 4,500 British and Indian troops, and their 12,000 camp followers, it's clear that the Afghans, Pathans and others are not 'friendly' so the whole idea of winning a war in Afghanistan is pretty unlikely, whatever our military capabilities and resolve may be.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not wanting to put words into bio-hazard's mouth but I wrote a similar comment to his and deleted after much patriotic deliberation .

What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing bi-elections across the country. Then Hey presto, along comes the Falklands war, (and no I'm not thinking cranky conspiracies).

Thatcher took one heck of a gamble . Indeed, what would have happened if a few of those heat-guided exocets had found their way to British aircraft carriers, and the weather had turned stormy ?
I know one thing that wouldn't have happened -- The 1983 Tory landslide election victory.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

Are you serously advocating murdering large numbers of peope just so the Tory party can win an election? Or is this just a wind-up?
Sorry Ken, but this has all the hallmarks of one of your "knock-door-run" posts. If I respond you probably wont be heard of again.

Maybe if someone else who does engage with debates asks the question on your behalf...

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing by-elections across the country.

Plus ça change...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing by-elections across the country.

Plus ça change...
And how many more elections did we win afterwards?

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Johnny English. ?

Margaret Thatcher guaranteed her continued premiership by going to war. I was a 1010% advocate of that. Couldn't sleep at night. I regard her as an awesome leader to this day. My 50 year armchair warrior is a powerful, visceral zombie this day.

In Christ we were wrong.

[ 30. March 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools