Go Iraq!

User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

I haven't cared for Iran since that whole Hostage thing, but I don't have to like them, do I?

Could the two join forces and bring some stability to the area? Could they make the citizens start to feel safe again in their own homes?

BBC News - Iraq 'seizes districts from IS' in Tikrit advance
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 4114
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Go Iraq!

Post by tude dog »

Iran soon to be a country with not only a nuclear bomb, but the ability to deliver it is a worrisome thought.
With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.

A. Lincoln
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

flopstock;1475128 wrote: I haven't cared for Iran since that whole Hostage thing ........



Really? I wonder if you know the events leading up to that affaire. Perhaps you are not aware that the Islamic Revolution and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Tehran were in direct response to the Amer-British destruction of the Democratic government of Iran and their tight-shoe fitting the Shah as puppet boy in the country who then proceeded in thrusting his people into brutal suppression, all under the benevolent eye of Washington and London. See, “Operation TP Ajax”. Today's Iran (nuclear threat et al.) is the consequence of American and British intervention. They have no one to blame but themselves.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

tude dog;1475130 wrote: Iran soon to be a country with not only a nuclear bomb, but the ability to deliver it is a worrisome thought.



Perhaps the U.S. and Britain ought to apologise and offer a hand of friendship. Iran has extended its' hand many times (since the Islamic Revolution) but to no avail. Shunning Iran has proven to be a dangerous exercise. But, suit yourself. If you cherish that "worrisome thought" .................. then carry on.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6385
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Go Iraq!

Post by FourPart »

High Threshold;1475139 wrote: Perhaps the U.S. and Britain ought to apologise and offer a hand of friendship. Iran has extended its' hand many times (since the Islamic Revolution) but to no avail. Shunning Iran has proven to be a dangerous exercise. But, suit yourself. If you cherish that "worrisome thought" .................. then carry on.



The words of Neville Chamberlaine after offering the hand of friendship spring to mind...

The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475128 wrote: I haven't cared for Iran since that whole Hostage thing, but I don't have to like them, do I?



Iran, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Mohammad Mosaddegh until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Iraq oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Saddam Hussein until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Libya, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Muammar Gaddafi until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Syria, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Bashar al-Assad until a US administration tried to pay for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime, which would collapse under the weight of public antipathy if it ever gets installed.

And you wonder why most of the Middle East contemptuously detests US administrations? Have you no imagination?

You actually cared for that greed-driven torture-loving satrap Mohammad Pahlavi?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

FourPart;1475140 wrote: The words of Neville Chamberlaine after offering the hand of friendship spring to mind...



Yes, I'm sure you're right. Just as well the American government hasn't accepted Iran's hand. All the U.S. wants is Iran's oil fields ..... again .... and Washington would only break the peace before very long. This way the Americans have no promises to break. Well, not with Iran anyway.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475147 wrote: Iran, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Mohammad Mosaddegh until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Iraq oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Saddam Hussein until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Libya, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Muammar Gaddafi until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Syria, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Bashar al-Assad until a US administration tried to pay for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime, which would collapse under the weight of public antipathy if it ever gets installed.

And you wonder why most of the Middle East contemptuously detests US administrations? Have you no imagination?

You actually cared for that greed-driven torture-loving satrap Mohammad Pahlavi?



I do see your point. However, the case with Mosaddeq was a stable, progressive Democracy. The others …. not so much.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

High Threshold;1475150 wrote: I do see your point. However, the case with Mosaddeq was a stable, progressive Democracy. The others …. not so much.

I suggest that Saddam Hussein was the best possible leader of Iraq in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Iraqis, that Muammar Gaddafi was the best possible leader of Libya in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Libyans and that Bashar al-Assad has been and is the best possible leader of Syria in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Syrians.

I think the question has to be whether the US-financed destabilization of Iraq, Libya and Syria has been, on balance, of benefit to the citizens of those countries, either in the short, medium or long term. I cannot believe there's anyone with the brass neck to say yes with regard to any of them. Those three countries have been utterly devastated as a consequence of these US-sponsored assaults, and the sooner the US has the ability to behave this way removed from it the better. I would prefer the removal to be a function of diplomacy but if it has to involve, for example, a worldwide embargo on US companies, then that's fine by me too. It has to stop.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475153 wrote: I suggest that Saddam Hussein was the best possible leader of Iraq in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Iraqis, that Muammar Gaddafi was the best possible leader of Libya in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Libyans and that Bashar al-Assad has been and is the best possible leader of Syria in terms of improving the lives and social standing of the majority of Syrians.



Hmmm. I haven't given it that much thought. Sounds interesting. Care to give me a “For Dummies” glimpse into some detail?

spot;1475153 wrote: I think the question has to be whether the US-financed destabilization of Iraq, Libya and Syria has been, on balance, of benefit to the citizens of those countries, either in the short, medium or long term.



A resounding “NO!”

spot;1475153 wrote: Those three countries have been utterly devastated as a consequence of these US-sponsored assaults, and the sooner the US has the ability to behave this way removed from it the better. I would prefer the removal to be a function of diplomacy but if it has to involve, for example, a worldwide embargo on US companies, then that's fine by me too. It has to stop.



Will you still be here when I wake up? I'm having such a beautiful dream …. I want it to last. Now, where is this list you'll be wanting me to sign?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

High Threshold;1475157 wrote: Hmmm. I haven't given it that much thought. Sounds interesting. Care to give me a “For Dummies” glimpse into some detail?

For Iraq, and women's rights, Was Life for Iraqi Women Better Under Saddam? appears well-informed and respectable.

For Libya and education, women's rights and prosperity, Libya: From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention | Global Research is coherent.

Syria was, I think, a country of two parts, the Telegraph piece at Was Syria ever the secular, non-sectarian state we are led to believe it was? – Telegraph Blogs may well have a lot going for it. Before the US-sponsored destabilization the countryside and perhaps even the majority of the population was held in check by the government, but army oppression - which undoubtedly broke out on occasion - caused far less havoc than what's replaced it. My daughter lived in Damascus for a year, five or six years ago, and felt safe enough to travel around the country and into Jordan and Lebanon. Syria has been destroyed since then, and the instigator of that destruction was US foreign policy.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475147 wrote: Iran, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Mohammad Mosaddegh until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Iraq oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Saddam Hussein until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Libya, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Muammar Gaddafi until a US administration paid for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime which collapsed under the weight of public antipathy.

Syria, oddly enough, had a stable secular republican government under a chap called Bashar al-Assad until a US administration tried to pay for the overthrow of his government and the installation of a puppet regime, which would collapse under the weight of public antipathy if it ever gets installed.

And you wonder why most of the Middle East contemptuously detests US administrations? Have you no imagination?

You actually cared for that greed-driven torture-loving satrap Mohammad Pahlavi?



How is it possible to have read all of that between my two lines?

The question was if you thought that these folks working together, is not what has been needed in the area?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6385
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Go Iraq!

Post by FourPart »

How do you define stability, though? Or more to the point, how do you define ACCEPTABLE stability. After all it wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking, before the U.S. Civil War when the rich land owners had their farms worked by the slaves, many of whom were born into bondage & servitude & bred for that very purpose. For many years this was a regime that could be described as being stable. The land owners knew their place, and the slaves knew their place, and life went on smoothly. Stable, yes. Acceptably stable? By today's standards, of course not. Hussain may not have had the WMDs he was accused of having, but there was no doubt that he was guilty of genocide. Still, it was a stable Government. So, what if a few million got massacred? It had the end result of maintaing the Government stability.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

FourPart;1475172 wrote: there was no doubt that he was guilty of genocide. Still, it was a stable Government. So, what if a few million got massacred?



Iraq under Saddam Hussein fought a proxy war on behalf of the US - back when he was the Arab Poster Boy for the US agencies - in which millions died. Is that the "massacred" you mean? Because apart from that I doubt whether Iraq under Saddam Hussein killed even a hundred thousand people, an order of magnitude fewer than Iraqis who died as a direct consequence of US sanctions between the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

As for "there was no doubt that he was guilty of genocide" I honestly have no idea what you refer to, not even which group of people you think he genocided. Do you mean the 5,000 killed on one day by chemical attack during the Iran-Iraq war? That's not genocide, that's unacceptable warfare killing too many civilians. Maybe you mean something else.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475171 wrote: How is it possible to have read all of that between my two lines?

The question was if you thought that these folks working together, is not what has been needed in the area?



You said you liked the Shah, a notion I found revolting. The Iranians found his governance so revolting there's been a popularly-supported theocracy in Iran ever since the Shah was toppled from power, that's how revolting the Iranians found him. He did not govern in the interests of Iran's population at all, he governed Iran on behalf of the USA. If I had a picture of him here I'd use it to line my shoe shelf.

Were I an Iraqi Shia minister I'd try very hard to persuade Iran to form a permanent federalist state with Eastern Iraq, and let Tikrit-Mosul solve its own problems. I might even arm the Iraqi Kurds as a parting gesture of goodwill.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475168 wrote: For Iraq, and women's rights, Was Life for Iraqi Women Better Under Saddam? appears well-informed and respectable.

The crust of lies and deception from the U.S. I know and understand very well, but the situation at the Iraki community level is more tragic than I had imagined.

spot;1475168 wrote: For Libya and education, women's rights and prosperity, Libya: From Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention | Global Research is coherent.

I was only slightly aware of Ghaddafi's successes. I was in Libya for a short stay during the NO-FLY period and I saw thousands of workers from the Mahgreb and sub-Saharan countries. Something must have been good.

spot;1475168 wrote: Syria was, I think, a country of two parts, the Telegraph piece at Was Syria ever the secular, non-sectarian state we are led to believe it was? – Telegraph Blogs may well have a lot going for it. Before the US-sponsored destabilization the countryside and perhaps even the majority of the population was held in check by the government, but army oppression - which undoubtedly broke out on occasion - caused far less havoc than what's replaced it. My daughter lived in Damascus for a year, five or six years ago, and felt safe enough to travel around the country and into Jordan and Lebanon. Syria has been destroyed since then, and the instigator of that destruction was US foreign policy.

Mostly over my head (this last one) but you have proven your point on all three. I know the U.S. is bent on confiscating anything and everything of worth and they have no humanitarian concerns what-so-ever. But what I haven't figured out is from what crack in the floor were Thatcher and Blair spawned?
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

FourPart;1475172 wrote: How do you define stability, though?

Well .......

FourPart;1475172 wrote: Or more to the point, how do you define ACCEPTABLE stability.

Uhhhh .....



FourPart;1475172 wrote: After all it wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking, before the U.S. Civil War when the rich land owners had their farms worked by the slaves, many of whom were born into bondage & servitude & bred for that very purpose. For many years this was a regime that could be described as being stable. The land owners knew their place, and the slaves knew their place, and life went on smoothly. Stable, yes. Acceptably stable? By today's standards, of course not. Hussain may not have had the WMDs he was accused of having, but there was no doubt that he was guilty of genocide. Still, it was a stable Government. So, what if a few million got massacred? It had the end result of maintaing the Government stability.



You've just answered your own question and by debate we are now at the point where Saddam's, Gaddaffi's and Assad's nations enjoyed ACCEPTABLE stability and on the rise.
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475180 wrote: You said you liked the Shah, a notion I found revolting. The Iranians found his governance so revolting there's been a popularly-supported theocracy in Iran ever since the Shah was toppled from power, that's how revolting the Iranians found him. He did not govern in the interests of Iran's population at all, he governed Iran on behalf of the USA. If I had a picture of him here I'd use it to line my shoe shelf.

Were I an Iraqi Shia minister I'd try very hard to persuade Iran to form a permanent federalist state with Eastern Iraq, and let Tikrit-Mosul solve its own problems. I might even arm the Iraqi Kurds as a parting gesture of goodwill.

Here in this thread I said that?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

High Threshold;1475184 wrote: But what I haven't figured out is from what crack in the floor were Thatcher and Blair spawned?



Thatcher was just a force of nature, much like typhoons or syphilis.

I suspect many of the Labour cabinet, including Tony Blair, were blackmailed into toeing the American line. I'll offer a couple of paragraphs from a web page I found by googling cia blackmail politicians British "new Labour" junior promote.When Tony Blair took office following a landslide victory in 1997, few commentators would have suggested that this man would be willing to drag his country into a war of unjustified aggression against a people that have done no harm to the British public. Nor would anyone have surmised that a Labour government would hitch its political fortunes to a shabby cabal of fanatical neoconservative Zionists working to make real their much-touted biblical Armageddon. And no one could have predicted that Blair’s nominally “Christian” administration would transform itself into a licentious club of flamboyant homosexual cruisers and out-of-control paedophiles.

But it is now becoming shockingly clear that the slavish adherence of Tony Blair and Jack Straw to the Bush line on Iraq may have less to do with principled arguments, and much more to do with the fear of CIA and FBI revelations that would make them two of the most hated politicians in modern British political history.

The SCUM: Tony Blair

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6626
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Go Iraq!

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Originally Posted by spot

You said you liked the Shah


No she didn't say she liked the Shah. She said she didn't like the Iranians since the hostage thing. I didn't like the Shah, & I don't like a religious theocracy any better. Don't put words in her mouth, or mine either.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Go Iraq!

Post by Ahso! »

AnneBoleyn;1475203 wrote: Originally Posted by spot

You said you liked the Shah


No she didn't say she liked the Shah. She said she didn't like the Iranians since the hostage thing. I didn't like the Shah, & I don't like a religious theocracy any better. Don't put words in her mouth, or mine either.
They're both adults, they'll work it out.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean


Fiona Apple
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475200 wrote: Thatcher was just a force of nature, much like typhoons or syphilis.

I suspect many of the Labour cabinet, including Tony Blair, were blackmailed into toeing the American line. I'll offer a couple of paragraphs from a web page I found by googling cia blackmail politicians British "new Labour" junior promote.When Tony Blair took office following a landslide victory in 1997, few commentators would have suggested that this man would be willing to drag his country into a war of unjustified aggression against a people that have done no harm to the British public. Nor would anyone have surmised that a Labour government would hitch its political fortunes to a shabby cabal of fanatical neoconservative Zionists working to make real their much-touted biblical Armageddon. And no one could have predicted that Blair’s nominally “Christian” administration would transform itself into a licentious club of flamboyant homosexual cruisers and out-of-control paedophiles.

But it is now becoming shockingly clear that the slavish adherence of Tony Blair and Jack Straw to the Bush line on Iraq may have less to do with principled arguments, and much more to do with the fear of CIA and FBI revelations that would make them two of the most hated politicians in modern British political history.

The SCUM: Tony Blair




Hold the bus!

You are using a site called the Scum for your argument? I like how Paedophilia comes after Members of Parliment in the tabs. :)
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6626
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Go Iraq!

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Ahso!;1475205 wrote: They're both adults, they'll work it out.



I know she is....................................;-)
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475199 wrote: Here in this thread I said that?



I believe you did, yes. You posted "I haven't cared for Iran since that whole Hostage thing" which I think implies that the hostage thing marks the division between before-the-hostage-thing, when you did care for Iran, and after-it when you changed and didn't. And I'm saying that the before-the-hostage-thing period was that of the Shah, because that's when it was.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475206 wrote: Hold the bus!

You are using a site called the Scum for your argument? I like how Paedophilia comes after Members of Parliment in the tabs. :)



I've never seen or heard of the site before. I was looking for a crisp description of the designers of New Labour acting against the interests of the UK, which they did, and the CIA looking for young up-and-coming foreign politicians they could lever up the ladder to power once they had compromising information on them, which they're documented as doing in various times and places. The two paragraphs I found were adequate to put the idea across. The rest of the story the page carries has been hovering in the background of the UK's collective consciousness for over a decade. I'd be delighted to see it explode into the courts while the actors are still alive to face the accusations.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475211 wrote: I believe you did, yes. You posted "I haven't cared for Iran since that whole Hostage thing" which I think implies that the hostage thing marks the division between before-the-hostage-thing, when you did care for Iran, and after-it when you changed and didn't. And I'm saying that the before-the-hostage-thing period was that of the Shah, because that's when it was.



'I haven't cared for France since the French Fries Protest' would then indicate I was 'pro' whoever may have been running France before the French Fry protest... am I understanding you correctly?

Be sure and wear a cape when you make these great leaps of yours dear.. I'd hate to lose you to a thought. :)

Seriously though, at that great age, my concerns were birthing babies and working day to day. Don't you remember how funny everyone thought it was that Amy Carter was said to discuss global issues at supper?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475214 wrote: 'I haven't cared for France since the French Fries Protest' would then indicate I was 'pro' whoever may have been running France before the French Fry protest... am I understanding you correctly?

Yes. Why else would you bother to pick out the moment of the French Fries Protest unless it marked a change in your attitude?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475215 wrote: Yes. Why else would you bother to pick out the moment of the French Fries Protest unless it marked a change in your attitude?



Or it could indicate I hadn't given them a thought at all up to that point(and I say that having taken french in high school:p).

Freedom Fries.. ahhh the memories that brings back:thinking:
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Go Iraq!

Post by flopstock »

spot;1475215 wrote: Yes. Why else would you bother to pick out the moment of the French Fries Protest unless it marked a change in your attitude?



And wasn't the same person running France before and after?
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.[SIZE=1]:-6[/SIZE]

User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

flopstock;1475218 wrote: And wasn't the same person running France before and after?
I should say not - nobody can remain the same person after being subjected to a mass coordinated hate campaign across America. Usually, of course, a person ends up dead, but even the survivors never come out of it unscathed.

President Jacques Chirac, it would have been. That chap gave the British more tabloid newspaper headlines than most people. "I'm alright Jacques", over French farming subsidies, caused mirth. That was The Sun, which tends to revel in this sort of mire-pit. Here's their take on the Freedom Fries story...We took copies of a French edition of our newspaper labelling Chirac as Saddam Hussein's whore.

Describing his actions as those of a 'Paris harlot', The Sun argued he was as big a threat to the civilised world as Iraq's tyrant.

Sadly but predictably, the poor, misled French people backed their spineless president to the hilt. On a sunny Champs Elysées, student Angelique Roulois, 18, nearly choked on her baguette when she saw our headline.




The Sun

Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475200 wrote: ..... I'll offer a couple of paragraphs from a web page I found by googling cia blackmail politicians British "new Labour" junior promote.

".... it is now becoming shockingly clear that the slavish adherence of Tony Blair and Jack Straw to the Bush line on Iraq may have less to do with principled arguments, and much more to do with the fear of CIA and FBI revelations ....."

The SCUM: Tony Blair




Yes, whether it be CIA blackmail or simple Pentagon offers that cannot be refused …. I get it. We are on the same track, and Fredrik Reinfeldt was a decided Tony Blair wanna'-be. He's out now and the Social Democrats are back in but our road to becoming Yankee Boy's play thing started the moment our dear Olaf Palme was assassinated – very presumably by the CIA – so Swedish, Social Democracy plat du jour is just a name and (what with the recent method of forming political party "blocks") we are nearing the American two-party system faster than the TGV.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

Employing the term “since” most certainly does imply a division, and the assumption is clear. However, it wasn't his intention to express a marked division in his sentiment. So, now that that's settled …............. :)
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

Her. She has considerable feminine charm to complement her razor-sharp intellect.

In all of these affairs relating to foreign policy the primary question is and always has been - who benefits? It's so old a principal that it exists in Latin: cui bono. Cicero attributed it to Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'The Iran-Iraq war of the eighties brought no benefit to Iran, and no benefit to Iraq. It reduced the power and capability of both countries. What did the US do about it? The US fed satellite imagery of the battlefields to both sides, to increase the slaughter.

The Afghan War between the seventies and nineties is widely documented by the principals themselves as involving the covert arming and payment by America of an international Muslim force, the Mujahiddin. Calling them "Freedom fighters" rather misdirects people from the literal translation of Mujahid, which is "one engaged in Jihad" - try plugging that into Reagan's observation next time you see it: To watch the courageous Afghan Jihadists battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. The disruption imposed by US foreign policy on the Middle East by the pouring of money and weapons into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists is unforgivable.

Who benefits? America now has another world-wide enemy, this time deliberately generated by America itself. American arms suppliers can make hay and the US Military can continue stamp its boots across the face of the planet. Who else benefits? Absolutely nobody.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

tude dog;1475130 wrote: Iran soon to be a country with not only a nuclear bomb, but the ability to deliver it is a worrisome thought.



There's only one country in the Middle East with the nuclear and delivery capability to destroy any target within a thousand miles, and we both know it doesn't mention Islam in its constitution. That, presumably, doesn't worry you in the slightest.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Go Iraq!

Post by Ahso! »

I'm afraid that in the end America will find itself in a very scary position; if it does not retreat from the current position, walk away and admit wrongdoing, pay the consequences and try a different approach, I fear we will eventually choose instead to drop nuclear bombs in the middle east.

A self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon if there ever was one.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean


Fiona Apple
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475249 wrote: Her. She has considerable feminine charm to complement her razor-sharp intellect.

In all of these affairs relating to foreign policy the primary question is and always has been - who benefits? It's so old a principal that it exists in Latin: cui bono. Cicero attributed it to Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'The Iran-Iraq war of the eighties brought no benefit to Iran, and no benefit to Iraq. It reduced the power and capability of both countries. What did the US do about it? The US fed satellite imagery of the battlefields to both sides, to increase the slaughter.

The Afghan War between the seventies and nineties is widely documented by the principals themselves as involving the covert arming and payment by America of an international Muslim force, the Mujahiddin. Calling them "Freedom fighters" rather misdirects people from the literal translation of Mujahid, which is "one engaged in Jihad" - try plugging that into Reagan's observation next time you see it: To watch the courageous Afghan Jihadists battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. The disruption imposed by US foreign policy on the Middle East by the pouring of money and weapons into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists is unforgivable.

Who benefits? America now has another world-wide enemy, this time deliberately generated by America itself. American arms suppliers can make hay and the US Military can continue stamp its boots across the face of the planet. Who else benefits? Absolutely nobody.



A fascinating response, one that I agree with in its entirety, well ….. there is one tiny player that you haven't mentioned and one that I cannot place either. Russia. Does it not benefit at all, even in its own long-term strategy? They must be contemplating their next move, or at least deciding the right moment to play it. They might be discreetly moving a pawn along the margin - a half-step at a time, to the opposite end of other board.

User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

Ahso!;1475260 wrote: I'm afraid that in the end America will find itself in a very scary position; if it does not retreat from the current position, walk away and admit wrongdoing, pay the consequences and try a different approach, I fear we will eventually choose instead to drop nuclear bombs in the middle east.

A self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon if there ever was one.



I don't agree. I think they know exactly what they are doing. They are masters of Tetris. They have expertly calculated the response possibilities to each of their moves. They have been planning and executing clandestine operations since the end of WW II. “We do this and they will respond with that” sort of thing. It's complicated but there is one wise observation I can leave you with. NEVER ask “How could they be so stupid?!” What you and I think of as a “mistake” is their “excuse”. For example, they say that they didn't “lie” about WMD's in Irak. They blame it on “faulty intelligence” and even “Saddam's unwillingness to admit he didn't have those weapons because he wanted his enemies to believe that …..... yada, yada, yada”. They have a hundred excuses – none of them include “lying” or Armageddon. Their treachery is method.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

I think there are lessons from the last hundred years regarding occupation.

Can you think of any country that has occupied the territory of another during that period, and not induced long-lasting bitter relations? There are three major instances I can think of and a couple of possible exceptions. The instances are Germany during World War Two, the USSR after, and the US in an assortment of disastrous interventions abroad.

Germany occupied Western Mainland Europe from 1940 where it couldn't gain neutrality. The reason was a long-term objective of occupying the territories of the USSR and replacing its population exclusively with German-speaking colonists. The word "lebensraum" - living space - described this genocidal ambition. They accepted neutrality with Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Sweden, Finland, they allied with the Axis nations and they occupied France, Greece, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans. Had they not occupied those countries they would have been attacked from the West once they had emptied their armed forces into the territory controlled by the USSR in Summer 1941. Germany can only ever fight on one European battlefront at a time, having the internal capacity of moving armies East or West at need. When it fights both sides at once the balancing act is very debilitating.

Relations between Germany and its European neighbors only became friendly as a result of deNazification after the war. The country was purged of its former rulers and their adherents. Germany was, effectively, dismantled politically and a new population of purged Germans, equally victims of the Nazi period, took over the country.

After the war, by prior arrangement with the UK and USA, the USSR occupied Eastern Europe and imposed their political mastery for the next forty years. That occupation unraveled in 1989 but the USSR, despite collapsing and losing its satellite nations to the south, was never purged of its rulers and their adherents. Russia is still seen, with good reason, as being run by a continuation of the Soviet apparatus.

The difference, if you were one of those occupied by either Germany or the USSR, is that Germany is no longer seen as the ex-occupiers because that Germany died. Russia is still seen as the ex-occupiers because the USSR lives on as Russia. Germans are now - notionally at least - friends and allies of their ex-territories whereas Russians are nothing of the sort across Eastern Europe and the countries which previously made up the ex-Soviet Federation.

I think Russia had one strategic territorial imperative since that break-up, which was to regain sovereignty over the Crimea in order to retain access to the Black Sea. If, in consequence, Ukraine breaks in half, it's no skin of Russia's nose but it's negotiable, it's not essential. Why would Russia, after its experience of occupying Eastern Europe and in the light of the permanent enmity it engendered, want to go back to that state of affairs. It was initially agreed because it gave the USSR a territorial buffer zone against future invasion by inimicable countries. In these more recent days of nuclear stand-off there's no benefit to be had in any buffer space. A nuclear umbrella, sure, but there's no such thing and never will be.

So, I don't think the Russians have any territorial ambition beyond maintaining its existing borders. Neither, just to get it said, do the Chinese, they have no history of territorial expansion - Tibet was a part of China for centuries until the colonial West tore China apart in the 19th century so I don't see the current retention of Tibet as expansionist.

The only country with current territorial ambitions is the USA and they don't want lebensraum, they want perpetual treaty bases. Their history over the last hundred years has been attack, occupy and demand treaty settlements at the point of a gun, imposing sovereignty over military bases. The US has permanent sovereign control established by military occupation over areas of Cuba, the Philippines, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Germany - the list goes on, the bases are not going to be relinquished and further invasions are guaranteed.

Is that a start toward an answer?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475283 wrote: I think there are lessons from the last hundred years regarding occupation.

....... I don't think the Russians have any territorial ambition beyond maintaining its existing borders. ........

The only country with current territorial ambitions is the USA and they don't want lebensraum, they want perpetual treaty bases. Their history over the last hundred years has been attack, occupy and impose treaty settlements imposing sovereignty over military bases. The US has permanent sovereign control established by military occupation over areas of Cuba, the Philippines, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Germany - the list goes on, the bases are not going to be relinquished and further invasions are guaranteed.

Is that a start toward an answer?



A well thought-out and exhaustive reply. And I'm sorry but I feel a bit guilty now. I didn't specifically mean that Russia would benefit from competing with the U.S. by invading and occupying nations. My question is aimed directly at your supposition that America alone benefits by its world-wide treachery in one way or another …... “Who else benefits? Absolutely nobody”, you said. I suggest that Russia also benefits from American misdeeds. They must be sizing up the situation and responding in any way that might afford them some advantage. Supplying opposing forces against those receiving supplies from the Americans perhaps. Syria for example? The Russians (nor any of the other Big Boys) are going to offer aid and assistance without returns. Undermining the U.S. alone (in a long-term strategy) simply must present benefits as well as making new and powerful friends.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

Russia might well be assisting the Syrian government, just to demonstrate annoyance at the US interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine and at the imposition of sanctions against the Russian leadership. Without any tokens to play they'd have little bargaining power to bring these pinprick annoyances to an end. I'm sure the prime strategic short and medium term objective of the Russian government is to stabilize and improve its economy.

If selling its gas and oil to China instead of Europe brings in a rising GDP then that's one step forward. I would be unsurprised if major mineral exploitation of Siberia and Mongolia by China (as opposed to Western companies) follows. The one thing the Russians won't tolerate is being bankrupted by American interference. Russia badly needs to improve the standard of living of its citizens, and the US is crowding it into a financial corner.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Go Iraq!

Post by spot »

As an aside, may I mention in passing one of the great anti-war songs, this by Ira Gershwin? Everyone these days seems to think it was a pro-war song (perhaps because the words got chopped around a lot in the 40s - not that people ever listen to words in songs) but, when the Gershwins wrote Strike Up The Band, it went like this...

We fought in nineteen seventeen

And drove the tyrant from the scene.

We're in a bigger, better war for your patriotic pastime.

We don't know what we're fighting for - but we didn't know the last time!

So load the cannon, draw the blade,

Come on and join the Big Parade!

Let the drums roll out, let the trumpet call, while the people shout, Strike up the band!

Hear the cymbals ring calling one and all to the martial swing, Strike up the band!

There is work to be done, to be done, there's a war to be won, to be won, come you son of a son of a gun, take your stand!

Fall in line, yay Bo', come along, let's go - Hey, Leader, strike up the band.

Yankee doo doodle-oo doodle-oo, we'll come through, doodle-oo doodle-oo, for the red, white and blue doodle-oo lend a hand.

With our flag unfurled we can lick the world! - Hey, Leader, strike up the band.





The irony drips like blood from every word, but recruits have hummed it while going off to every war since it was written. It's an upside-down world we live in.

I disagree with Philip Furia in the link, by the way - I think the entire piece, every line of it, not just the beginning, was intended to be ironic, and progressively more disquieting as it approaches the end. "With our flag unfurled we can lick the world" stands on a pinnacle of disgust alongside "The morning will come when the world is mine, tomorrow belongs to me".
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Go Iraq!

Post by High Threshold »

spot;1475308 wrote: Russia might well be assisting the Syrian government, just to demonstrate annoyance at the US interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine and at the imposition of sanctions against the Russian leadership. Without any tokens to play they'd have little bargaining power to bring these pinprick annoyances to an end. I'm sure the prime strategic short and medium term objective of the Russian government is to stabilize and improve its economy.

If selling its gas and oil to China instead of Europe brings in a rising GDP then that's one step forward. I would be unsurprised if major mineral exploitation of Siberia and Mongolia by China (as opposed to Western companies) follows. The one thing the Russians won't tolerate is being bankrupted by American interference. Russia badly needs to improve the standard of living of its citizens, and the US is crowding it into a financial corner.



Well said.

Return to “Warfare Military”