open Democracy News Analysis - An Interesting Perspective, - Comments

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:42:10 +0100

Wyseowl, [“Nah bolly, got lots of better things to do than try to argue with someone who has a closed mind and is filled with hate, as you are by your own admission. What is the point ?”] So why are you doing it??? >>My argument, which you falsified, was that Mossad probably knew more than anyone else what the actual state of Iraq’s WMD capability was since 1998.] [“State your source.”] Here is one source but there are others: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=1364388&t=-1 If you don’t believe Mossad has superior knowledge to other intelligence services on the situation in the Middle East, then you are among a minority. I will use your type of tactic and ask you to find me sources that say that Mossad knows LESS than the others. >>You assert that the balance of probabilities was that Iraq had WMD. You avoid responding to the assertion by Dr David Kay, the Pentagons’ own choice to lead the Iraqi Survey Group,. . .] [“Blix was reporting to the UNSC, but I am sorry his reports don't quite fit your thesis. Dr. Kelly knew more about the topic than David Kay and in an interview broadcast after his death he said he was fairly certain Saddam still had WMD. Dr. Kelly was one of the best inspectors and one of the most fearer by the Iraqis. Again what he said doesn't fit your view.”] So why did the Pentagon (Rumsfeld), which had a very considerable axe to grind and whose reputation would have been greatly enhanced by the discovery of WMD in Iraq, chose David Kay, if he was below par. They could have asked David Kelly, as he had not committed suicide when Blix was stood down. I am not saying he would have accepted but if Bush had asked Tony Blair, his good mate, to persuade Kelly, he might have taken the job. Blix himself said that the rush to war was political and not to do with the imminence of WMD being unleashed. No one seriously believed there was an immediate threat while inspections were going on. I am sorry, old man, you simply haven’t addressed the reason why Blix was not given more time, when he had been started on the path of inspections by both Bush and Blair. They deliberately cut the ground from underneath him because he threatened their pre-agreed agenda to invade, whether there were WMD or not. >>I also quote what Wolfowitz said which gives a good indication of how WMD were not the real or main factor for the war] [“Moving the game as usual bolly.”] I cannot see the relevance of this last comment. Just another one of your sound bites for effect! >>A lot rides on the word ‘liberal’ that you used.] [“In the English sense: I know no other.”] Deal with my arguments on this point, which I made in the earlier posting. Facetious comments are no substitute. >>The reason why my postings are mainly related to criticism of the US, is that they it is the dominant world power and its actions are the most likely to affect the peace and security of the world [“Your posts are for the most part concerned with America, and are almost wholey anti-American. You have an axe to grind, so perhaps it is time you declared it.”] You must have been tired when you responded to this post because I certainly gave details of the axe I was grinding and you failed to notice. >>I don’t like the perpetual smirk on Bush’s face. I hear and see him on TV. He strikes me as ill educated and of rather limited intelligence and should not be leading a country of 280 millions with his finger on the nuclear trigger. If you want to translate this view into a ‘hate’ of George W.Bush, that’s up to you. My view of Bush is shared by millions and it is not ‘silly and pathetic’ as you seem to think. In my view these words exactly describe your apologetic statement about Bush, which suggests to me that you have reservations than you admit to.] [“Pathetic bolly and beneath you. President Bush is not a great public speaker, but he is far cleverer than you give him credit. Again the axe is being ground. Why ? Do you hold elected office ? If not why not ? Should we not therefore assume you are too stupid to hold office ? Same principle.”] You are becoming quite expert in putting the wrong words into my mouth. Wake up and read what I have said on the point on a number of previous occasions, which explains my attitude to Bush and his administration. >>I simply don’t know why you want me to take on the mantle of an advocate who is paid to argue a case whether he believes in it or not. It is a nice try to trap me but it won’t work. Any case I would make out for the neocons would necessarily have to be sourced from their philosophy and ideas.] [“Try it and see. Lets see if you have worked out the argument, or if, as seems to be the case by what is quoted above, your arguments and views are mirred in hate, bile and intolerance.”] What argument are you referring to. Trying to be cryptic, isn’t being clever in your case but obtuse.As for my being “ mired in hate, bile and intolerance” this is a nice set of nouns, can’t you think of any more. [“As I said 'You can never reason someone out of something, when they were never reasoned into in the first place'.”] You like repeating yourself.

owly on "An Interesting Perspective"

owly — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:04:21 +0100

Nah bolly, got lots of better things to do than try to argue with someone who has a closed mind and is filled with hate, as you are by your own admission. What is the point ? [My argument, which you falsified, was that Mossad probably knew more than anyone else what the actual state of Iraq’s WMD capability was since 1998.] State your source. [You assert that the balance of probabilities was that Iraq had WMD. You avoid responding to the assertion by Dr David Kay, the Pentagons’ own choice to lead the Iraqi Survey Group,. . .] Blix was reporting to the UNSC, but I am sorry his reports don't quite fit your thesis. Dr. Kelly knew more about the topic than David Kay and in an interview broadcast after his death he said he was fairly certain Saddam still had WMD. Dr. Kelly was one of the best inspectors and one of the most fearer by the Iraqis. Again what he said doesn't fit your view. [I also quote what Wolfowitz said which gives a good indication of how WMD were not the real or main factor for the war] Moving the game as usual bolly. [A lot rides on the word ‘liberal’ that you used.] In the English sense: I know no other. [The reason why my postings are mainly related to criticism of the US, is that they it is the dominant world power and its actions are the most likely to affect the peace and security of the world] Your posts are for the most part concerned with America, and are almost wholey anti-American. You have an axe to grind, so perhaps it is time you declared it. [I don’t like the perpetual smirk on Bush’s face. I hear and see him on TV. He strikes me as ill educated and of rather limited intelligence and should not be leading a country of 280 millions with his finger on the nuclear trigger. If you want to translate this view into a ‘hate’ of George W.Bush, that’s up to you. My view of Bush is shared by millions and it is not ‘silly and pathetic’ as you seem to think. In my view these words exactly describe your apologetic statement about Bush, which suggests to me that you have reservations than you admit to.] Pathetic bolly and beneath you. President Bush is not a great public speaker, but he is far cleverer than you give him credit. Again the axe is being ground. Why ? Do you hold elected office ? If not why not ? Should we not therefore assume you are too stupid to hold office ? Same principle. [I simply don’t know why you want me to take on the mantle of an advocate who is paid to argue a case whether he believes in it or not. It is a nice try to trap me but it won’t work. Any case I would make out for the neocons would necessarily have to be sourced from their philosophy and ideas.] Try it and see. Lets see if you have worked out the argument, or if, as seems to be the case by what is quoted above, your arguments and views are mirred in hate, bile and intolerance. As I said 'You can never reason someone out of something, when they were never reasoned into in the first place'.

ronr327 on "An Interesting Perspective"

ronr327 — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:20:55 +0100

wyseowl Brolly can speak for himself, but I have posted a piece here in which I quote from an article Brolly called attention to. It was by Matthew Paris, and in it the neocon case is put quite felicitously. That case is in italics at the beginning of my own consideration of the issue. The post was made on May 15, 2004 on a string by Brolly: Bush to be re-elected for the sake of future peace! Message was edited by: ronr327

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:45:31 +0100

wyseowl, [“I wrote a long reply to your last post which I lost as I attempted to post it because my connection failed. Frankly I ain't got time to write it out again. However just to annoy you I will make a couple of observations -:”] I appreciate your honesty in stating your motive – which is ‘just to annoy you’ (me). You obviously have difficulty in finding something better to do. [“YOU assume Mossad knew this that and the other. I have not read anything to suggest that is true. You know better so source it.”] My argument, which you falsified, was that Mossad probably knew more than anyone else what the actual state of Iraq’s WMD capability was since 1998. This is not the same as saying that they knew EXACTLY what it was. Furthermore I pointed out that when they suspected or knew that they were in real danger, they acted in the 1980’s to take out Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The fact that they didn’t do anything in the intervening years was a good clue to their grasp of the situation. [“YOU assume Saddam didn't have WMD on what you know today, not on what you knew two years ago. Far better experts than yourself, with all due respect, reached a different conclusion. Dr Kelly was one of them. Blix reports to the UNSC said the same. The balance of probabilities had to be that Saddam still had what we knew he had in 1992. That remains the case until we know for sure - not what you assume - what became of it.”] You assert that the balance of probabilities was that Iraq had WMD. You avoid responding to the assertion by Dr David Kay, the Pentagons’ own choice to lead the Iraqi Survey Group, in an interview that I watched, that Washngton and London knew sufficient to believe before the war began that Iraq had little or no WMD capablilty. I also quote what Wolfowitz said which gives a good indication of how WMD were not the real or main factor for the war: It would appear that removing US troops from Saudi Arabia has not reduced Al Qaeda’s grievances and if anything has increased and spread them. Not much of a recommendation for Wolfowitz’s ideas. [“You assume the American's don't want a free and liberal Iraq, really for no other reason that it suits your anti-American point of view. I want a free and liberal Iraq and don't care what you think on that point.”] A lot rides on the word ‘liberal’ that you used. It is clear that the US wants to see an economic system that mirrors its own and that is why Paul Bremer attempted via the notorious Order 39, to open Iraq up to carpet bagging foreign investors before any mandate had been received from the Iraqi people. He thought that once large portions of the Iraqi economy were in the hands of foreign ( mainly US) owners, the die would be cast . If you think this is democratic, I certainly don’t, nor will anyone who is acquainted with the meaning of the concept. You mouth off about freedom and democracy but ignore acts that undermine it. [Get one thing straight. It is not anti- Americanism that many of us feel, it is anti- neoconservatism. You fail to make the distinction. Yes, we criticize the America of the past for pursuing realpolitic interests but then so does almost every country and in that sense we are hypocritical. However the special loathing we Europeans have Bush and his gang has never been paralleled, even in the times of Lyndon Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam). Do you ever wonder why? It is because we detect something that is extremely dangerous that even in the fifty years of the Cold War, was not felt so acutely.] [“Anti-Americanism is exactly that. Neo-con argument is a red herring (pardon the pun !). I am sure your attitudes were formed long before President Bush was elected to office. Looking round this site you are most active on threads which are deeply critical of America and on many threads there is not a single post from you. You have nothing to say about that tyrant Mugabe for example. Why not ? And yes you are a hypocrite, because all governments follow their own interests as I have pointed out before. You are following your own agenda in this discussion, and refuse to bend an inch. Where the facts get in the way you widen your point of attack ie Cuba (We ain't talking about Cuba). The 'hate' for President Bush is frankly silly and pathetic. Time there was a more balanced argument rather than all the posturing one reads. Bush is not a perfect figure by any means, but he is far from the caricature you make him out to be. And does it not cross your mind that he might be right and you wrong ?”] You accuse me of having preconceptions but betray the same by asserting that my attitudes to America ‘were formed before President Bush was elected’. I might ask how the hell you know what they were or when they were formed. The answer is you don’t! As a matter of fact I never thought that much about the US before 2002 and the build up to the war. The reason why my postings are mainly related to criticism of the US, is that they it is the dominant world power and its actions are the most likely to affect the peace and security of the world in the coming decades and of course that impinges on my family. What Robert Mugabe does is unlikely to affect me as directly. Your argument on this point is indeed a ‘red herring’. As for governments following there own interests, I have acknowledged this directly to you before, so there is no hypocrisy on my part but a bad memory on yours. Funny thing is that when I refer to Cuba, you sarcastically state “ we ain’t talking about Cuba” and yet you bring up Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe in the same paragraph. Surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn’t you say. I don’t like the perpetual smirk on Bush’s face. I hear and see him on TV. He strikes me as ill educated and of rather limited intelligence and should not be leading a country of 280 millions with his finger on the nuclear trigger. If you want to translate this view into a ‘hate’ of George W.Bush, that’s up to you. My view of Bush is shared by millions and it is not ‘silly and pathetic’ as you seem to think. In my view these words exactly describe your apologetic statement about Bush, which suggests to me that you have reservations than you admit to. As for him being right and me being wrong, my question to you is what exactly are you implying he is right about and what exactly am I wrong about. If you are referring to the invasion of Iraq, I would like to know the conclusions you have drawn and in respect of what exactly they are, which aspects of the whole adventure, that enable you to say he may be right and I am wrong. [“As I recall it was President Kennedy who started the Vietnam adventure and all LBJ did was follow the policy through. Nixon for all his faults seems to have had more sense than either LBJ or JFK.”] I didn’t suggest that Nixon had no sense, so I don’t know what you are signifying in your statement. [“I would be very interested in a piece from you defending and explaining the neo-con ideas (oh and I am not a neo-con, I am an old style High Church Tory, if you know what one of those is) which would be an interesting exercise for you. You wont do it and we know why.”] I simply don’t know why you want me to take on the mantle of an advocate who is paid to argue a case whether he believes in it or not. It is a nice try to trap me but it won’t work. Any case I would make out for the neocons would necessarily have to be sourced from their philosophy and ideas. If I didn’t repeat their views, you would argue that I did not represent them properly. And if I did, you might say to me – look you have made out a case for them, so even you must admit they have one. [“This would enable you toAs you are fond of quoting sayings or proverbs here is one for you-: 'You can never reason someone out of something, when they were never reasoned into in the first place'.”] And this saying doesn’t refer to you as well? Well, aren’t you the blind one! Message was edited by: brolly2_1

owly on "An Interesting Perspective"

owly — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:37:45 +0100

brolly, I wrote a long reply to your last post which I lost as I attempted to post it because my connection failed. Frankly I ain't got time to write it out again. However just to annoy you I will make a couple of observations -: YOU assume Mossad knew this that and the other. I have not read anything to suggest that is true. You know better so source it. YOU assume Saddam didn't have WMD on what you know today, not on what you knew two years ago. Far better experts than yourself, with all due respect, reached a different conclusion. Dr Kelly was one of them. Blix reports to the UNSC said the same. The balance of probabilities had to be that Saddam still had what we knew he had in 1992. That remains the case until we know for sure - not what you assume - what became of it. You assume the American's don't want a free and liberal Iraq, really for no other reason that it suits your anti-American point of view. I want a free and liberal Iraq and don't care what you think on that point. [Get one thing straight. It is not anti- Americanism that many of us feel, it is anti- neoconservatism. You fail to make the distinction. Yes, we criticize the America of the past for pursuing realpolitic interests but then so does almost every country and in that sense we are hypocritical. However the special loathing we Europeans have Bush and his gang has never been paralleled, even in the times of Lyndon Johnson and Nixon (Vietnam). Do you ever wonder why? It is because we detect something that is extremely dangerous that even in the fifty years of the Cold War, was not felt so acutely.] Anti-Americanism is exactly that. Neo-con argument is a red herring (pardon the pun !). I am sure your attitudes were formed long before President Bush was elected to office. Looking round this site you are most active on threads which are deeply critical of America and on many threads there is not a single post from you. You have nothing to say about that tyrant Mugabe for example. Why not ? And yes you are a hypocrite, because all governments follow their own interests as I have pointed out before. You are following your own agenda in this discussion, and refuse to bend an inch. Where the facts get in the way you widen your point of attack ie Cuba (We ain't talking about Cuba). The 'hate' for President Bush is frankly silly and pathetic. Time there was a more balanced argument rather than all the posturing one reads. Bush is not a perfect figure by any means, but he is far from the caricature you make him out to be. And does it not cross your mind that he might be right and you wrong ? As I recall it was President Kennedy who started the Vietnam adventure and all LBJ did was follow the policy through. Nixon for all his faults seems to have had more sense than either LBJ or JFK. I would be very interested in a piece from you defending and explaining the neo-con ideas (oh and I am not a neo-con, I am an old style High Church Tory, if you know what one of those is) which would be an interesting exercise for you. You wont do it and we know why. As you are fond of quoting sayings or proverbs here is one for you-: 'You can never reason someone out of something, when they were never reasoned into in the first place'.

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:49:01 +0100

wyseowl, [“It is a pity you are not better at listening bolly, but least you are good at hectoring. Just remember you might be wrong in what you believe and it does no harm to listen to another point of view no matter how much you might disagree with it. I can't actually be bothered going through every point in your post (I am interested in the ideas, the whys etc), but in reply to a few points -:”] Well, being selective as to the points you responds to, distorts the thrust of my arguments. This is a good tactical move on your part but is really rather defensive. I referred to Israel’s probably unique intelligence network in the Middle East when I said that they above all others would have known Saddam’s WMD capability and that they had struck Iraq in the 1980’s, when there was indeed an ACTIVE nuclear program. The US would almost certainly have had some idea of the Israeli assessment, although Israel may well have wanted the US to take out Saddam for them. [“WMD covers nuclear, biological and chemical weapons: I DID NOT say Saddam had nuclear weapons. I said I thought he had WMD, and I have recently read that he told both King Abdullah and President Mubarak that he did have these weapons, so perhaps you would care to tell us all when Saddam told you he didn't have them. You assume he didn't have them, you did not know. I would also remind you that the late Dr Kelly, who had forgotten more about WMD than you or I will ever know, thought Saddam did have stocks of these weapons. We also know, and Blix said so to the UNSC, that stocks remained unaccounted for and this remains the position today. What you are doing is applying hindsight and crowing about it. The point is that 2 years ago you did not know either one way or another, BUT the balance of Probabilities had to be that these weapons existed at that time. “] As I have said above, he (Saddam) didn’t tell me but Mossad would have known and Israel hadn’t made any move since the UN Inspectors left in 1998. In fact, the Israelis were far more concerned with Iran. As for the unaccounted WMD that Blix spoke of, he did so in line with his mission to report to the Security Council, on behalf of the UN. He did not at the time say that he had concluded that there were WMD that were hidden. Furthermore he said that given more time and the estimate put on this by the French was about four to six months, he would be able to give assurances that there were or were not WMD. As a matter of record if you refer to last year['s pre-war postings (Iraq - War or Peace) I held the same position as now, so I am not crowing retrospectively.

owly on "An Interesting Perspective"

owly — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:35:54 +0100

It is a pity you are not better at listening bolly, but least you are good at hectoring. Just remember you might be wrong in what you believe and it does no harm to listen to another point of view no matter how much you might disagree with it. I can't actually be bothered going through every point in your post (I am interested in the ideas, the whys etc), but in reply to a few points -: WMD covers nuclear, biological and chemical weapons: I DID NOT say Saddam had nuclear weapons. I said I thought he had WMD, and I have recently read that he told both King Abdullah and President Mubarak that he did have these weapons, so perhaps you would care to tell us all when Saddam told you he didn't have them. You assume he didn't have them, you did not know. I would also remind you that the late Dr Kelly, who had forgotten more about WMD than you or I will ever know, thought Saddam did have stocks of these weapons. We also know, and Blix said so to the UNSC, that stocks remained unaccounted for and this remains the position today. What you are doing is applying hindsight and crowing about it. The point is that 2 years ago you did not know either one way or another, BUT the balance of Probabilities had to be that these weapons existed at that time. [Here you go again! No one is saying that the Arabs personality or character cannot abide democracy. This is a false argument and does not deal with what is really going on. The US administration does not want ‘ a free and liberal’ Iraq unless it is shaped in its own image.] The US can't do anything right in your eyes, and actually your rabid anti-Americanism has blinded you to everything. King Faisal II was brutally murdered in 1958 and the people of Iraq have known nothing but dictators ever since. The very soil of Iraq is soaked in their blood. Their liberation from tyranny was long overdue, and I am quite sure had Lady Thatcher still been in Downing Street at the end of the first Gulf War all this conversation would be irrelevant. Saddam should have been overthrown then and exactly how many Iraqis would be alive today if he had ? I think you are totally wrong to say the US doesn't want a free and liberal Iraq. There has been the other sort of Iraq since 1958, and exactly where has that got anyone ? I wonder why you are stuck in what is a very cold war, 1960s time warp ? There was a case for propping up some regimes, but I don't see that case anymore. Actually the Arab world sits and rants and raves, yet many of the problems are of their own making. You mention their attitude to Israel. Time they grew up: Israel exists and although they have gone to war against her they have always lost. Nasser, for all the bluster, was incompetent on the battlefield. I assume that is the West's fault as per usual. The rabid hate of Israel and indeed the West has been a very handy way for these corrupt regimes to deflect attention from their own incompetence and failings. Is there not a connection between the fact that generations of Saudi school children have been taught that a 'Christian' is an 'infidel' and his life is as nought ? As to Europe I never used the phrase 'the sentiment of the European people'. I was referring to their governments as you well know. What you say is true, and indeed the Spanish people gave into terrorism in a shameful way. It does not alter the fact that 'Old Europe' did not speak for 'ALL of Europe' as they seem to think they did and do. European defense is far too important to be determined by narrow prejudice and xenophobia. NATO for all you loath it has kept the peace here and that is far too important to destroy on the altar of anti-Americanism. And I just remind you that when Europe was left to sort out the Balkans look what happened. Have they learned nothing ? Evidently not. By the way lets hear you make the otherside of the case. Tell us why the neocons (whom you evidently loath so much) are right. Be an interesting exercise.

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:24:34 +0100

jmiddleton, ["Thanks for the response. I read the article by the socialist and you are right. I disagree. Many of us on the Pro-US/UK side have admitted the past consequences of cold war era policy. Isn't it time that you admitted that the US has done some good in the world and that everything the US does is not motivated by greed?"] The US is motivated by what is known as realpolitic. Nothing unusual in this and the word 'greed' is somewhat inappropriate. It is more a case of historical determinism being responsible for the framework in which politicians make their decisions. Oil and other resources are vital to the continuity of any advanced and developing industrialised economy, and no politician can afford to stray from this reality. As for the US doing 'some good', this depends to some extent on the nature of the administration and who is President at the time. It doesn't really get us very far to award points for good conduct to politicians or nations, because altruism is not a universal constant.If anything it is a hinderance to being effective in the pursuit of retaining political power.

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:04:12 +0100

wyseowl, [“I'm not sure you are correct. Like many people I thought Saddam had WMD, indeed I have read recently that the fool told King Abdullah and President Mubarak that he did have them, so either he was lying to seem the 'big man', or he did actually have them which begs the question of what happened to them. When the UN went back I don't really think one could argue that Saddam did anything but give them the 'run around', which could be explain in two ways: either he had WDN and was concealing them, or he no longer had anything and wished to conceal that fact, particularly from the Iranians. Either way he miscalculated as he quite often did.”] If anyone had a good idea of Iraq’s WMD capability, it was Israel. Do you seriously believe that Israel would have allowed Saddam to develop an effective nuclear capability without striking at the location/s. They did not hesitate in the 1980’s to take pre-emptive action and certainly would have done so if it existed after the UN Inspectors left in 1998. The evidence that there were no WMD after the early 1990’s continues to pile up with each day that no discovery is made. I think that the argument that they were hidden or buried is pretty weak. David Kay, the Pentagon’s own man, who headed the Iraqi Survey Team after Blix, said in an interview that I watched on TV recently, that US and UK intelligence actually had enough knowledge before the war that Saddam presented no threat in respect of WMD. He implied that the case for the invasion was not based on WMD. You can argue this point till the cows come home but it will not change my mind or the minds of a lot of people outside as well as inside the US that the war was fought for other reasons. Blix did not give me the impression that Saddam was giving him the run around, to the extent that you seem to be implying. Blix actually said that co-operation was quite reasonable if not exactly whole hearted. You continue to try to make some sort of case for WMD, which is increasingly threadbare. [“A British Prime Minister does carry weight in Washington, I think that is undeniable, simply because Britain is still a hugely powerful and a respected country, and also because there are bonds of 'kith & kin' which are different to the relationship between Paris & Washington or Berlin & Washington. Blair undoubtedly had some influence in Washington, and it was Blair who persuaded Washington to go the UN route. This was probably a miscalculation on his part and as a result his influence has been diminished.”] You make no comment on the point you made concerning Tony Blair’s preoccupation with his image and upon which I remarked. I don’t doubt that Blair had some influence in Washington, although many people in the UK doubted it was anywhere near sufficient to offset that of the neocons around Bush. Colin Powell himself was rather beleaguered among that lot and has considerably diminished his reputation by lending himself to a cause he was not really committed to. His appearance at the UN when he presented the ‘evidence’ for the WMD threat will continue to haunt him as long as he is in politics. [“While this will not be a popular thing to say, President Bush has embarked on a high stakes poker game in the Middle East. There are some quite ghastly regimes there, some more benign than others such as Jordan etc, but I would love to overthrow many of them. I think we have to face the fact that propping up some of them over the last 40-50 years has availed us nothing and merely gained us Al Queda ! May be the Bush idea of democracy in the Middle East - allowing the winds of change to blow - is right, but can it be any worse than what is there now ? And at the end of the day why should the people of the region live under the jack boots of so many tyrants ? Yes, we do have interests there which is the oil, but the people of the region also have an interest in selling us the stuff too. Takes two to tango.”] I mentioned in another posting that Middle East democracies that have any genuine substance to them may not be that friendly or tolerant of a nuclear armed Israel and that US semi-client regimes that have Peace Treaties with Israel are essentially authoritarian states .i.e. Jordan and Egypt. I entirely disagree with your view that the neocons wish to bring democracy to the Middle East. I think they want to create more client states including Iran and Syria, with puppets like Ahmad Chalabi with regimes that masquerade as ‘democracies’. Nowhere do you mention the dictatorship of Pakistan. The number of terrorists cells that seem to be active in that country and the Madrassas where thousands of Muslim fundamentalists are being turned out, seems to have escaped your attention and apparently that of Mr Bush. How can you talk about Bush wishing to create democracy in the Middle East when Saudi Arabia is one of the most authoritarian states and from which most of the 9/11 perpetrators came from and yet Iraq was chosen for the invasion. The whole argument that you advance which is basically that of the neoconservatives, is totally lopsided. This more than anything else points to the fact that it creating genuine democracy among the Arabs and other Muslims is not the underlying motive. [“Liberty and democracy aren't just fruits to be enjoyed by us and us alone. I do not accept the idea that representative democracy in the western sense is incompatible with Islam. Nor do I think, as I have read in other places, that Arabs are use to tyrants, and it is the natural order of things in that part of the world. It isn't and such an idea is insulting and frankly racist. I would not have got enmeshed in Iraq quite as we have, but I hope what is underway succeeds and so should everyone else. A free and liberal Iraq is a worthy goal, and let us not forget that the people of Iraq lived in a ‘prison with a mass grave beneath their feet’. The tragedy is that when they were liberated from that tyrant the tanks that rolled into Baghdad weren’t Arab tanks.”] Here you go again! No one is saying that the Arabs personality or character cannot abide democracy. This is a false argument and does not deal with what is really going on. The US administration does not want ‘ a free and liberal’ Iraq unless it is shaped in its own image. The attempts to pre-empt the democratic mandate of the Iraqi people by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer’s guidance have been referred to many times on OpenDemocracy and in the media. The opening up of Iraqi industry to foreign investors, who were to be allowed to own up to 100% of the firms they invested in and to be able to repatriate up to 100% of the profit earned, was given expression in the notorious Order No. 39. I suggest that you read it. True it allowed for a democratically elected Government to amend the order but why the haste to get the investment underway, when no democratic mandate was likely to be in existence until next year at the earliest. The truth of the matter is that Bremer and the Bush administration hoped that so much Iraqi industry would have been privatised by that time, that it would be a fait accompli and very difficult to dismantle. We have an example of how rapid privatisation in Russia gifted the assets of major industries to the ‘oligarchs’, which were the people at the top of the old system that had the means of raising money from the Banks to buy up the vouchers from the public at next to nothing prices. All the Iraqi expatriate politicians including Ahamd Chalabi and his family, with their friends in high US places, positioned themselves to make a bean feast of Iraqi assets. [“There is also a slightly wider point. Europe was not united either one way or the other, and I do think it is damned impertinent of the French and Germans to think they are Europe. They aren't. Europe is more than just them, as is the EU although they seem to think the thing is their exclusive property. More European leaders were in favour than against the war and it is easy to miss that point. Also what undermines the alliance, by which I hope you mean NATO, isn't the actions of the US & UK. European defence and security is based on NATO and I am deeply suspicious of anything which seeks directly or indirectly to undermine that cornerstone. The French policy seems to be to peel Europe off from NATO by creating the 'European Defence Arm' which is the biggest load of nonsense going. Moral of the story: when the Europeans were left to find a solution to a problem themselves in their own backyard we saw genocide again, something I never thought would be seen again in Europe.”] I think you have no idea of the sentiment of the European people with regard to the war, as distinct from some of their leaders. Opinion polls throughout ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe before the war, showed the public enormous opposition. In Spain the nearly 90% were not in favour and Aznar’s support was totally unrepresentative of his people. Likewise in Italy, the popular disagreement with Berlesconi’s support of Bush reached over 80%. Figures for Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary were not dissimilar. To use your own words, you have ‘missed the point’. Many of us in Europe want to ‘peel off’ from NATO as long as there are neoconservatives running the US Government, as we think they are a danger to world peace. With Bush and his neocon supporters breaking Treaties relating to disarmament and spending vast sums to develop new nuclear weapons and space war technology, we can see the start of an arms race with China, Russia , India and probably Pakistan participating. We know where this will lead in the long run if not sooner and do not want to be locked in by the likes of people like Tony Blair, to the US and to become targets because of it. Britain is already marking itself out by allowing the US to use it Fylingdales early warning system in the new US plans. I can tell you that the British people heard nothing about this in the New Labour Party’s election manifesto in 2001 and Blair has no mandate from the electorate to act in such a way. I think you have no idea of what a majority of Europeans are thinking.

jmiddleton on "An Interesting Perspective"

jmiddleton — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 17:52:13 +0100

lawson, Are you a member of Hamas?

jmiddleton on "An Interesting Perspective"

jmiddleton — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 17:49:27 +0100

Brolly, Thanks for the response. I read the article by the socialist and you are right. I disagree. Many of us on the Pro-US/UK side have admitted the past consequences of cold war era policy. Isn't it time that you admitted that the US has done some good in the world and that everything the US does is not motivated by greed? Like you I distrust political leaders. That is why we try to have a system with as many checks and balances as possible including the right to bear arms and remove our own government by force if needed. Concerning Somalia, if the US was really fueled by business interests in an effort to gain some "oil" from Somalia, why didn't the US just send in the armor that it needed to wipe out the warlords instead of losing so many men? Also, is there a country in the world that does not have oil or some other resource that the US could help and not be accused of the usual "blood for oil" slogan?

owly on "An Interesting Perspective"

owly — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 17:13:24 +0100

brolly, I'm not sure you are correct. Like many people I thought Saddam had WMD, indeed I have read recently that the fool told King Abdullah and President Mubarak that he did have them, so either he was lying to seem the 'big man', or he did actually have them which begs the question of what happened to them. When the UN went back I don't really think one could argue that Saddam did anything but give them the 'run around', which could be explain in two ways: either he had WDN and was concealing them, or he no longer had anything and wished to conceal that fact, particularly from the Iranians. Either way he miscalculated as he quite often did. A British Prime Minister does carry weight in Washington, I think that is undeniable, simply because Britain is still a hugely powerful and a respected country, and also because there are bonds of 'kith & kin' which are different to the relationship between Paris & Washington or Berlin & Washington. Blair undoubtedly had some influence in Washington, and it was Blair who persuaded Washington to go the UN route. This was probably a miscalculation on his part and as a result his influence has been diminished. While this will not be a popular thing to say, President Bush has embarked on a high stakes poker game in the Middle East. There are some quite ghastly regimes there, some more benign than others such as Jordan etc, but I would love to overthrow many of them. I think we have to face the fact that propping up some of them over the last 40-50 years has availed us nothing and merely gained us Al Queda ! May be the Bush idea of democracy in the Middle East - allowing the winds of change to blow - is right, but can it be any worse than what is there now ? And at the end of the day why should the people of the region live under the jack boots of so many tyrants ? Yes, we do have interests there which is the oil, but the people of the region also have an interest in selling us the stuff too. Takes two to tango. Liberty and democracy aren't just fruits to be enjoyed by us and us alone. I do not accept the idea that representative democracy in the western sense is incompatible with Islam. Nor do I think, as I have read in other places, that Arabs are use to tyrants, and it is the natural order of things in that part of the world. It isn't and such an idea is insulting and frankly racist. I would not have got enmeshed in Iraq quite as we have, but I hope what is underway succeeds and so should everyone else. A free and liberal Iraq is a worthy goal, and let us not forget that the people of Iraq lived in a ‘prison with a mass grave beneath their feet’. The tragedy is that when they were liberated from that tyrant the tanks that rolled into Baghdad weren’t Arab tanks. There is also a slightly wider point. Europe was not united either one way or the other, and I do think it is damned impertinent of the French and Germans to think they are Europe. They aren't. Europe is more than just them, as is the EU although they seem to think the thing is their exclusive property. More European leaders were in favour than against the war and it is easy to miss that point. Also what undermines the alliance, by which I hope you mean NATO, isn't the actions of the US & UK. European defence and security is based on NATO and I am deeply suspicious of anything which seeks directly or indirectly to undermine that cornerstone. The French policy seems to be to peel Europe off from NATO by creating the 'European Defence Arm' which is the biggest load of nonsense going. Moral of the story: when the Europeans were left to find a solution to a problem themselves in their own backyard we saw genocide again, something I never thought would be seen again in Europe.

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:52:46 +0100

lawson560, I agree some of what you say about the neoconservatives and the motives for the Iraq war but it would be better said in a less intemperate manner. Don't take this the wrong way, as I too get angry at the lies and misinformation that emenates from The White House and 10,Downing Street, but outbursts of rage only give the supporters of the Bush Doctrine ammunition to fire back as to our incivility rather than contest the actual case being made Message was edited by: brolly2_1

lawson560 on "An Interesting Perspective"

lawson560 — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:28:07 +0100

Here we go again - the great and salivating Bush-Zionist war machine is greasing its guns and polishing it's Apache gunships. The power crazed eyes coupled to very sick brains are anticipating more and more oil wealth. Plus potentially huge new orders to General Dynamics and other parasites that feed on human suffering. What is it this time? "Oh the terrible suffering of the Sudanese people" It really makes me cringe to hear the Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush team bleating that they have to stop the suffering. THIS CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS GOVERNED BY A MALIGNANT GROUP OF NEOCON ZIONISTS, WHO I SWEAR, GIVE NOT ONE DAMN ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF SUDAN. Ditto for Christians Muslims Jews or any other group of poor suckers on this planet. What does appeal to their greedy brutal gutless characters is this: Port Sudan International Airport is 70 miles South West across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia . Guess what 5 years ago the Sudan had ZERO YES ZERO OIL production . It is currently pumping at least 300,000 BPD and is expected to pump 500,000 BPD by 2005. It has a brand new refinery in Heglig just a few miles West of Port Sudan International. The Sudan has current oil reserves of at least 560,000,000 barrels of crude. The Sudan's GDP growth is a very strong 5% Per Annum in spite of crucifying US sanctions against this country, which started with the handy 911 debacle. Sanctions are a cute cruel and devastating way that is often used by American Zionists to destabilize a foreign government in order to justify a forthcoming invasion The civil war there has been going on for 100 years - the sudden almost sobbing humanitarian outpouring from the US is bullshit. Wolfowitz and Perle said that the Iraqis would be standing out with flowers to hand to the democratizing American military - instead, the truth is that the Iraqi horrendously illegal invasion was cooked up by people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Karl Rowe and other ultra right wing Zionist conspirators and their cronies. Just today the US military has killed at least 300 men, women and children in the Iraqi town of Najef. They are being advised by Israeli IDF staff and are carrying out carbon copy killings of the type that happen every day to the hapless Palestinians. We the Americans are to build the biggest US embassy in the world in Baghdad - for liberation NO! For OIL yes!It was never for anything else! So the killing for greed goes on and on and on. As I said, here we go again only the drums are beating for an invasion of Sudan. We have got to get these power-crazed monsters OUT of our political system before the world becomes one giant sewer of rottenness. Wake up everyone! These people are insane and will, if not locked up soon , take us all to hell with them. Old Europe as the rodent Wolfowitz names the European Union. is not keen to help in our totally mislead and criminal escapades for the simple reason that they are, (except for Tony Blair) not controlled by Zionist thugs. On a happier note: the cracks are showing on all sides in the Zionist camps Administration and I can tell you Condoliza Rice is getting nervous about what they are doing. THAT is good news! A lot of people believe the IMF to be some sort of government funding bank. In reality it is just another private lending bank but with political agendas by the cartload.

brolly2_1 on "An Interesting Perspective"

brolly2_1 — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:27:07 +0100

wyseowl, ["And on a point of fact, Blair did not table a motion for war. Again as Howard has said had he known then what he knows now he would not have voted for the motion. There is one crumb of comfort in all this: Blair will never be free of his duplicity and it will stain his place in history. For a man obsessed with image one wonders how he dug himself into that particular hole."] There are different explanations for Blair's decision to support the war. You can take your choice. My own favourite, although not necessarily true, is that the image you say Blair is obsessed with, is the key to the situation . Blair liked the idea of being perceived as the most influential (at least in his mind) person on the most powerful man in the world .i.e. George W.Bush. This was next best thing to actually being President himself, something of course he could never be. Being seen at Bush's side while holding counsels of war and then affecting to be the bridge between the Bush administration and Europe, exactly suited this glory seeker. In pursuit of such an opportunity to appear on the premier world stage, Blair did not bother to work out the consequences and he was prepared to resort to any necessary deception to play his part, once he had been 'selected' by Bush for the role of major ally. Having Britain 'standing shoulder to shoulder' was a significant coup for Bush and helped him politically. There is an alternative explanation, which is that Blair was warned by the Foreign Office, that the Bush neoconservative regime could get out of control and that he was about the only person that might reign them in and get the UN involved,so avoiding the undermining of the Westerna Alliance, that had stood in good stead since the war. As I said, one can take their choice and it is even possible to connect the two views and yet others. However, as I said, Blair's histrionic personality is where I pitch my tent. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

An Interesting Perspective,

fdbjr — Sun, 30 May 2004 10:12:36 +0100

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/opinion/29KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists Note, at the end of the article, the observation concerning the total non-involvement of Europe in this episode. Why?