I certainly don't agree with his opinion of Roy Keane, but I think he was dead one with the Bush one.
He was very interesting.
Hey Ciaran
Maybe you're a damned criminal! Can I see your bank statement?
Invite the UN to run Iraq. Thats a great idea. Why didn't I think of that. They did such a good job with the Oil for Food program, I am sure they'll really be masterful this time.
People in glass houses Phamtom, where did all that "reconstruction" money go?
Maybe you're a damned criminal! Can I see your bank statement?
No, but you can see his declaration of interests: http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/
Can he see yours?
And what JG said on the reconstruction money.
I am interested to hear the Greens supporting a United Ireland as I rarely hear from them on that issue. I question though whether there is consistency from the Greens on this given their support for immigration. Will the immigrants have any interest in this when the Southern referendum happens?
JG
My tax money paid for the reconstruction funds. Did yours?
When Kofi and Saddam's Oil for Food Plan was in its full corrupt glory, palaces were built while the people starved. Where were your blog comments then? Please provide links to same.
A great deal has gone wrong with this war, but the wheel is still in spin my friend. If Ciaran the Politician had his way, Saddam would still be in power, malevolently neutral in eyeshot of the greatest evil.
joemomma
My interests may be found in my two blogs and in the comments I make in the links contained in View from 103. It will be easy for you to educate yourself on some of my interests.
I presume you'll be liberating Tibet next then? Or maybe there'd be nothing in it for you.
My tax money paid for the reconstruction funds. Did yours?
I didn't raise the country to rubble so why should I pay to build it up again?
Anyway the reconstruction hasn't happened. Still only a few hours of electricity a day in Iraq, sewers over-flowing and water constantly on and off.
This war wasn't only morally grotesque but utterly stupid. I would have thought nobody save Bush could actually stand over it at this stage but there you go...
China, bad as it is, has not invaded its neighbors in recent years, as Saddam did re Kuwait, Iran ( not that I was totally against that ) and the little adventure of launching missiles into downtown Tel Aviv a while back. If you have information that China is doing such things, please elucidate.
Not that I am a fan of " Red China ". I could go on on this point, but will spare us this.
Why the concern with Iraq? Do you have nostalgie pour Saddam? There are enormous problems now, and even Ciaran the Politician could tell what has gone wrong, but what would you have done three or four years back?
Allowed Saddam to stay on his throne, killing and stealing, with Kofi's UN in full craven complicity?
Phantom,
There are failed states and dictators all over the world. Africa is full of them, not PC to say so but it's true. If invading all these countries, overthrowing the tyrant and holding elections was the answer there may be an argument for it. We're on morally questionable ground here however because tens of thousands of people inevitably die when you bomb urban areas. Iraq proves that this course is not the answer.
Suggesting I'm "nostalgie pour Saddam" is unsulting and reflects very badly on you. You're trying to dumb-down the argument to:
anti-war = anti-American
anti-war = pro-Saddam
Many tens of thousands have died in Iraq in the most gruesome and violent circumstances, sectarianism is now flourishing and the country is on the brink of civil war. That cannot be deemed a success in any man's language.
On what should have been done about Saddam - very hard to know. During his rule about 80 people died a year for "dissent", about that many die a day now and the county's infrastructure is destroyed and the streets are unsafe. Electricity is worse than pre-war levels and there is raw sewege flowing in the streets in many areas of Baghdad.
I take your point that he invaded other countries - he definitely was dangerous - but that was not the reason given to the world for war. All the reasons given turned out to be a pack of lies as we all now know... that suggests there's another agenda here.
China, bad as it is, has not invaded its neighbors in recent years"
So what. Just because it hasn't done it in recent years means nothing. It has invaded and brutalised its neighbours in living memory and continues the torture and abuse to this day. And there is silence.
JG
Africa is a goddamned disaster, from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic, from South Africa to the Med. Lets face it.
Noone is saying invade every country with a bad leader. Not me anyway.
The invasion of Iraq was morally correct in every conceivable way. Saddamite Iraq was a menace to its people and to each of its neighbors and to the larger world.
The Phantom thinks long term. Things certainly are not all wonderful now, but the menace is deposed, and a decent outcome is possible. Don't think years. Think long term. A more decent outcome could have been realized sooner, but countries that could have helped either did not or actively obstructed the righteous effort.
The pre-invasion situation was intolerable and would have rapidly become worse...worse than what existed then or now...with the dismantling of sanctions by Kofi's UN.
I do not believe that the reasons for the war were a " pack of lies ". They were believed by the US, by the Brits, by the French, by the Russians, by the Israelis. Thats fact.
--On what should have been done about Saddam - very hard to know--
It was...all the moreso as Kofi's UN, and the French and the Germans and the Russians had many hands being greased. The UN was part of the problem. Bush did the right thing by acting. The specific actions can be criticized, but taking Saddam out is an action for which he and PM Blair will be absolved by history.
We'll not be invading China. We're busy. Its a less imminent threat than Iraq was. If you feel otherwise, start a campaign to have the EU invade them. Could be very interesting.
The invasion of Iraq was morally correct in every conceivable way. Saddamite Iraq was a menace to its people and to each of its neighbors and to the larger world.
Really? I think you're overstating the danger. We've now found that he had no weapons to speak about. Being able to attack London within 45 minutes etc., it was all lies.
Don't think years. Think long term. A more decent outcome could have been realized sooner, but countries that could have helped either did not or actively obstructed the righteous effort
Very easy for you to say that. You seem delighted that Iraq is "liberated" but make no mention of the ordinary people who are made to endure this "long war." The other countries made it clear beforehand that they were having nothing to do with this crusade so don't go passing the blame now that you've made a mess of it all.
They were believed by the US, by the Brits, by the French, by the Russians, by the Israelis. Thats fact
They were at best believed officially by the governments of those countries but certainly not by the populations. So it's not fact, it's false.
The pre-invasion situation was intolerable and would have rapidly become worse...worse than what existed then or now
??? Please elaborate.
The specific actions can be criticized, but taking Saddam out is an action for which he and PM Blair will be absolved by history
You think so? Even when all the dirt comes out about the secret torture camps. When the full details come out about the use of white phosphorus and how it burned civilians to the bone. Not to mention the vanishing reconstruction money.
I don't want anybody to invade China! My point was, and this applies to Africa too, that you cannot just invade a country, topple the leader, stage your elections and expect it to work out. You're saying "think long term" which is exactly what your country didn't do. It joyously planned the bombing of cities but never got to thinking about what would happen afterwards.
I noticed you made no mention of most of the points I made, most notably:
During his rule about 80 people died a year for "dissent", about that many die a day now and the county's infrastructure is destroyed and the streets are unsafe. Electricity is worse than pre-war levels and there is raw sewege flowing in the streets in many areas of Baghdad
I guess they should just think long-term and stop their whinging eh?
I must agree with JG.
The invasion has ruined Iraq, this will become (already has....) the modern Vietnam. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? This was the "reason" for invading in the first place.
Bush lied through is teeth to invade, history will not look favourably on him for this. There are far, far worse regimes in africa which get completely ignored because they have no oil or other interests for the US.
All in all this whole episode is a huge mess and will serve only long term to stir up even more hatred (much of it anti-west) in the whole middle east.
Lorcan raises an important point...
The damage, not just to the US but to the West as a whole, resulting from this disaster is incalculable.
How many young men have been radicalised as a result of this war? Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before this war, now they are very effective in stirring up sectarian strife and promoting their rotten agenda.
JG
Well, we disagree. I think that pre-invasion Iraq was completely intolerable from a geopolitical perspective. It was a highly aggressive regime in the most dangerous region of the world.
You'd like to think that the United Nations could have played a role in resolving the problem, but the UN under Kofi was entirely compromised. There were two alternatives. The first, which your thoughts would have led to, would have been to do nothing. Or worse still, to loosen sanctions, which would have led to a re-energized Saddam out of his cage and with far more resources at his disposal.
Countries like Ireland and Greece were were not part of the problem but countries like France and Russia that aided and abetted Saddam were complicit in what happened. I will apportion some of the blame to them. I will not tell you what to think and you will not tell me what to believe.
--They were at best believed officially by the governments of those countries but certainly not by the populations--
A foolish comment. If you want the governments of European nations to guide their foreign policies by a polling of what their " populations " think, then these countries could save a lot of cash by disbanding the intelligence services and spending a portion of that money on enhanced polling capabilities.
The populations of countries can believe all sorts of things at times.
You act on what you know, verified to the best of your abilities. Thats the only option that any leader can ever have.
The populations of countries can believe all sorts of things at times.
Please spare the crocodile tears on reconstruction money. You haven't paid into it, any more than you paid for the liberation of Iraq from Saddam, any more than you contributed to the liberation of the Bosnians, or the liberation of Western Europe from Hitler. The US did, and I am glad that they did.
You can continute to act morally superior, but that's not helpful to a debate.
I am not sayng that the situation in Iraq is acceptable today. I believe that a lot of the violence is perpetrated by former Baathists, former Saddamites. You know, those folks we should have left untouched.
The bad guys in the Middle East operate on a very long term timeframe. I think that the good guys need to have just as long a timeframe.
Well said Phantom but one usually resonds to what the other says in these threads! I respect your opinion, don't get me wrong, but I've heard it so many times. It's generic and cold. I tried to narrow the discussion by making some points but you've decided to ignore them, perhaps they make you feel uncomfortable.
You see I genuinely don't understand how you can say:
"countries like France and Russia that aided and abetted Saddam were complicit in what happened"
with a straight face. America was arming Iraq and Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. I thought you didn't want him invading his neighbours, would have been a good idea not to sell him guns then. I don't for a minute expect you to respond to the above!
Oddly, you seem full sure that I think the UN is blameless. You are completely wrong, I think the UN is/was quite inept in dealing with these kinds of things. What I'd like to see is a reformed and strengthened UN. We have never needed it more.
"A foolish comment. If you want the governments of European nations to guide their foreign policies by a polling of what their " populations "..."
There you go again! I said no such thing. I think leaders should lead. What I said was that it was widely known that the WMD claim was pure fiction. For a start, why didn't the US let the UN weapons inspectors finish their work? It was only a matter of weeks before they'd be finished. But then the US would have nowhere to turn as there lies would have been exposed.
"You act on what you know, verified to the best of your abilities. Thats the only option that any leader can ever have."
I'm sure you don't really believe that's what Bush did!
"Please spare the crocodile tears on reconstruction money"
Indeed I've shed no such tears. It is odd though that you don't seem at all bothered that so much of it vanished. That's YOUR money! Another example of willfully blind patriotism.
"You can continute to act morally superior, but that's not helpful to a debate."
Your country has killed up to 100,000 people in the past few years. If I seem a little exercised about that it is because I value human life.
"I believe that a lot of the violence is perpetrated by former Baathists, former Saddamites. You know, those folks we should have left untouched"
Phantom, that line won't wash. It's not 2003 anymore. Iraq is on the brink of civil war - in fact some would say that civil war has already begun. Forget Baathists, Iraq is on the verge of disintegration.
The US will leave Iraq in the next few years (forget your long-term talk) and leave the country in ruins. That's exactly what they did in Vietnam and I saw the effects myself a full thirty years later. Amputees everywhere, congenital defects, crops that still won't grow. What a crime.
Opps, should have closed the italics tag!
You accuse me of running the same thing over and over but you bring up the Iran-Iraq war. Well, lets discuss it then.
That was a war between regimes that could have not been more horrid. Somwhat analogous to the war between Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR. Churchill and Roosevelt gave material aid to the USSR. That was because aiding the Communist tyranny was a lesser evil than allowing Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime rise to surpreme power in Asia and Europe.
The Iran/Iraq situation was very similar. The Khomeiniist death cult was seen as a worse threat. I agree with that assessment. The correct decision was indeed made to give some material aid to Iraq in that context.
--
The choice at the time--the only one that matters-- was to allow the UN to take the lead or to invade.
The UN, as I've said, was completely compromised. France would never have allowed intervention if the inspectors had found a billion atomic bombs, each attached to ballistic missiles. They were on the payroll.
I would have supported an invasion separate and apart from the issue of WMD. The geopolitical necessity was that grave,and the UN under Kofi was simply not an honest option.
We'll see what Iraq evolves or devolves into, which will not be clear for some time.
Personally, I don't have to adhere to the stated opinions of anyone else. My personal opinion is that Iraq was a phony entity created by the British way back when.
For starters, I want an independent Kurdistan. Don't expect much support from Kofi or GWB or too many others on that.
"I think that pre-invasion Iraq was completely intolerable from a geopolitical perspective. It was a highly aggressive regime in the most dangerous region of the world."
Well it's a good deal more dangerous now, especially if you're a westerner - more dangerous than ever. The invasion has served to unite these "bad guys" against the "evil west" and give them even more power than they had before.
"Countries like Ireland and Greece were were not part of the problem but countries like France and Russia that aided and abetted Saddam were complicit in what happened. I will apportion some of the blame to them." - And of course none to the US?
In the end none of us wil be proved either right or wrong. I would say however that the invasion of Iraq, however good intentioned it may have been (which I don't believe) will ultimately lead to a much deeper destabilisation of the whole middle east region and eventually the whole world and lead to the bankruptcy of the US.
This will be the legacy of George Bush.
"Personally, I don't have to adhere to the stated opinions of anyone else. My personal opinion is that Iraq was a phony entity created by the British way back when.
For starters, I want an independent Kurdistan. Don't expect much support from Kofi or GWB or too many others on that." Well at least I'd agree on that one with you, Phantom. Won't be holding my breath either though.
One thing you forget amid all your guff about the Iran/Iraq war is that the US armed BOTH sides.
The geopolitical necessity was that grave
Still no word on all the innocent people who die when you drop bombs on urban areas. I suppose their grieving families can take comfort knowing the geopolitical necessity was grave...
Waiting to be called a bleeding heart liberal because I place value on human life.
My personal opinion is that Iraq was a phony entity created by the British way back when.
LOL, what's America??
Aleady talking about Iraq in the past tense Phantom! Perhaps you're not as blind as you pretend.
For starters, I want an independent Kurdistan. Don't expect much support from Kofi or GWB or too many others
That's the hypocricy of GWB. He says he'll stand with nations who want freedom but what he really means is he might stand with them if there's something in it for him.
The US opposed Khomeini-led Iran. If you need education on this, I will provide. With the regrettable exception of Reagan's arms for hostages thing-- a bad action done to free hostages -- do not believe the US sent any weapons to Khomeini led Iran. If you know otherwise, please educate the waiting world.
--
I wouldn't call you a bleeding heart liberal.
But if you are consistent, then you would criticize all bombing. Including the British and US bombing of Germany and Japan in WW2. Without which those countries would never have been defeated.
Bombing is always awful, but it is much more targeted these days. This won't be of much comfort to anyone who winds up on the wrong end of an errant bomb, but it is the truth. If you are against all bombing you are against all war and if you are against all war the bad guys will always prevail as the Hitlers and Husseins have no such scruples I assure you.
--
You throw non-sequitors around quite a bit. If you have issues with the borders of America, then lets hear them. If you wish to compare America with Iraq, then lets hear that too. It is one day past April Fools, but perhaps UI will provide an extra day of grace and count it as a late entry to the April Fools Contest.
--
I'm not blind at all.
And I do think one of the problems of this world is that people, incl GWB, think that borders are inviolate. I'd like to rewrite them in a number of places, and think that the world would be a vastly better place for it. That may be an article soon in my own blog.
Gotta run. Chores must be done before I watch tonights episode of the Sopranos.
That was JG above...
Anonymous
?
Commenting by HaloScan
