Register to Comment
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 127 of 127
Like Tree29Likes
  1. #121
    Clanrickard Clanrickard is offline
    Clanrickard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    27,961

    Quote Originally Posted by james5001 View Post
    Zimbabwe is in no way socialist. I don't think you understand basic political terms. So you think a person should be locked up because he/she's a socialist?!
    Yes it is Socialist.

    Quote Originally Posted by james5001 View Post
    Even if they have a mandate?
    And S Africa wouldn't be far worse off. Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. If they were socialist policies a dictatorship wouldn't occur, at the very least.
    LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.

    Quote Originally Posted by rash mulligan View Post
    Ah indeed I remember back in the day 1980's when the international left made sense.

    They over tuned aparthied in South Africa.

    Then they harboured Salmon Rushdie for offending the mullaghs.

    Then the Berlin Wall fell.

    The marxists and muslims took over the left and they have been wrong ever since.

    Ah well .
    Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #122
    Houyhnhnm Houyhnhnm is offline
    Houyhnhnm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,258

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitch 22 View Post
    Why don't you buy a wreath for Saddam and visit his grave? Boo hoo
    *shrugs shoulders*

    Based on the information that was available to me, I supported the war to get rid of Saddam, so I don't have bull's notion as to what you're on about.

    Now how about answering my simple question: Do you believe the end justifies the means in all circumstances?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #123
    stopdoingstuff stopdoingstuff is offline
    stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,643

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitch 22 View Post
    So they upshot of what you are saying is you would prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power?
    I think those who removed him were his long-time sponsors, so if its right for him to be removed, it is even more right for those who armed, financed and covered up for him to face justice too. I also think that it is incoherent to talk about right and wrongs in one case while the very basis of US foreign policy has been to routinely support evil regimes who murder, oppress and steal from their own people. If he did have to go, the time to do it was when he was weakened after Iran or Kuwait. After Kuwait, he had lost control of the North and the South, and getting rid of him would have been a much less complicated matter. It certainly would have been preferable to leaving him there for over a decade while his innocent population was further brutalized, both by him directly and by the impact of very misguided sanctions. Back then, there would have been broad support, both within Iraq and internationally, for getting rid of him.

    As it happened, the actual war had almost nothing to do with him- he was a bit player in the larger game for the control of a region and its oil. On top of that, the war itself was based on a total lie, and led to carnage and chaos much in excess of what was warranted or what would have been the case if the planners had given a moments thought to post-war planning. That lack of concern for the population, over and above the bombing, was a crime in itself.

    As for him still being in power, those who kept him in power should swing. If they wanted to remove him, there were better ways, such as cutting a deal with the army or arming the rebels and letting them fix it. Even having a limited invasion with local and/or regional support for the specific purpose of toppling his regime and followed by a swift exit would have been preferable to what went down.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #124
    Protestant/Catholic=Irish Protestant/Catholic=Irish is offline
    Protestant/Catholic=Irish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,014

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    Yes it is Socialist.



    LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.



    Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.
    Communist countries have ended up as dictatorships, I agree.

    None of the socialist Scandinavian countries were dictatorships and socialist Libya was not a dictatorship.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #125
    james5001 james5001 is offline
    james5001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,011

    Quote Originally Posted by Clanrickard View Post
    Yes it is Socialist.
    LOL! If they were Socialist they'd be more likely to be a dictatorship. All Socialist nations end up as dictatorships.



    Good point. There was a time when the left stood for fair play and civil rights. Now it is the preserve of right on types with agendas.
    We've already been through this clanny. I've already explained to you why it isn't.
    2nd bold point- Then theyre not socialist.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #126
    EPluribusUnum EPluribusUnum is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    246

    Quote Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff View Post
    I think those who removed him were his long-time sponsors, so if its right for him to be removed, it is even more right for those who armed, financed and covered up for him to face justice too.
    (1) please see post 121 above. So that would be Russia, France, China, Czechoslovakia and Poland as the Big or Evil 5 who armed Saddam.

    (2) please see post 121. Would be the Big or Evil 5 above plus Germany as financiers.

    (3) please note who did not join in the war for regime change, so would be Russia, China, France, Germany, etc., who covered up for Saddam.

    (4) on this topic, you sound as deluded as these folks: Manson's Deluded Skanks - YouTube

    (5) I did not quote some of the rest of your post above, but you also wrote:

    As for him still being in power, those who kept him in power should swing. If they wanted to remove him, there were better ways, such as cutting a deal with the army or arming the rebels and letting them fix it.


    Funny that, since Bush said in 2003:

    It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

    (6) You also wrote:

    As it happened, the actual war had almost nothing to do with him- he was a bit player in the larger game for the control of a region and its oil.

    Bush also said:

    Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
    ***
    Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.


    And then a few days later:

    To all the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
    ***
    We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.


    (7) You also wrote something about oil. In contrast, from the New York Times:

    MOSCOW — When Iraq auctioned rights to rebuild and expand its oil industry two years ago, the Russian company Lukoil won a hefty portion — a field holding about 10 percent of Iraq’s known oil reserves. It seemed a geopolitical victory for Lukoil. And because only one of the 11 fields that the Iraqis auctioned off went to an American oil company — Exxon Mobil — it also seemed as if few petroleum benefits would flow to the country that took the lead role in the war, the United States.

    The auction’s outcome helped defuse criticism in the Arab world that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil."


    So not about the oil. We are, however, making money subcontracting, the drilling and repair, since we have the superior knowledge and equipment for that, and so the Russian firm, Lukoil, subcontracted out the drilling, etc. Here:

    Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and an authority on oil and conflict, said that American oil services companies were generally dominant both in the Middle East and globally because of their advanced drilling technology. So it is no surprise, he said, they came out on top in Iraq, too — whatever the initial diplomatic appearances.
    ***
    [O]ne of Lukoil’s first steps after securing the West Qurna 2 deal was to subcontract the oil well refurbishment work to Baker Hughes.
    ***
    Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the company’s subsidiary for foreign operations, said in an interview that he was choosing oil services contractors in Iraq through open tenders, as required by the contract. But in fact, Lukoil officials say privately, only American companies have bid.


    And here, for you sadly and tragically misinformed souls, and I'm going to put this in bold, so you can't miss it. We don't care about the ownership of the oil all that much. We just want the oil on the world market, and enough to keep prices relatively low:

    “The strategic interest of the United States is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices,” Mr. Kuzyaev said.

    That's our interest. And that should be your interest as well. Since if you all will notice, we didn't reach the tipping point re the whole property boom until the price of oil shot up like a rocket, and that's when the gears began to grind down and we hear some awful noises coming from the engine space.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment