Question Time!

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 09 Jun 2006, 09:23

No questions on peak oil as expected as oil is not in the headlines at the moment.

I thought George was in good form, attacking the mess in Iraq rationally and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who attacked his "moral right to kill Blair" view while celebrating the killing of Zarqawi. The government lackey was out of his depth.

GD · Post by GD » 09 Jun 2006, 09:28

Yep. Shame they can't see the bigger picture i.e. why we're in Iraq in the first place.

Post by **clv101** » 09 Jun 2006, 09:43

WolfattheDoor wrote:The government lackey was out of his depth.

That's exactly what I thought, I almost felt embarrassed for him.

I'm surprised that climate change and environmental issues weren?t covered given the BBC's Climate Chaos season and the LibDem's recent statements on tax.

GD · Post by GD » 09 Jun 2006, 10:19

Ditto.

And all that time wasted on flags!

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 09 Jun 2006, 10:40

WolfattheDoor wrote:No questions on peak oil as expected as oil is not in the headlines at the moment.

I thought George was in good form, attacking the mess in Iraq rationally and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who attacked his "moral right to kill Blair" view while celebrating the killing of Zarqawi. The government lackey was out of his depth.

How is it hypocrisy? , whatever your opinion on the war ( and Im less than keen myself), Blair and the British Military doesn't deliberately target civilians, Zarqawi doesn't give a hoot who he targets....?

Big difference?

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 09 Jun 2006, 10:47

Totally_Baffled wrote:
WolfattheDoor wrote:No questions on peak oil as expected as oil is not in the headlines at the moment.

I thought George was in good form, attacking the mess in Iraq rationally and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who attacked his "moral right to kill Blair" view while celebrating the killing of Zarqawi. The government lackey was out of his depth.
How is it hypocrisy? , whatever your opinion on the war ( and Im less than keen myself), Blair and the British Military doesn't deliberately target civilians, Zarqawi doesn't give a hoot who he targets....?

Big difference?

I'm sure all the civilians that have been maimed for life, or had their families killed, will find the fact that they weren't deliberately targeted very reassuring.

Considering our military has managed to kill something like 100,000 civilians during their adventures in Iraq, it makes me wonder how many would have died if we were deliberately targeting them.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 09 Jun 2006, 10:56

It's also quite possible that the factional fighting has been encouraged by the occupying forces, on a divide and conquer basis. You may remember last year that two SAS men, dressed as arabs were caught (and then sprung) with explosives in their car.

All these killings by "men in police uniforms" (or, more simply, policemen) may also lead back to the occupying powers who are training and co-ordinating the Iraqis.

Peter.

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 09 Jun 2006, 11:27

Totally_Baffled wrote:

How is it hypocrisy? , whatever your opinion on the war ( and Im less than keen myself), Blair and the British Military doesn't deliberately target civilians, Zarqawi doesn't give a hoot who he targets....?

Big difference?

The hypocrisy is either that you accept that leaders are legitimate targets or you don't. The degree of 'chivalry' or who they target is irrelevant.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 09 Jun 2006, 12:27

WolfattheDoor wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:

How is it hypocrisy? , whatever your opinion on the war ( and Im less than keen myself), Blair and the British Military doesn't deliberately target civilians, Zarqawi doesn't give a hoot who he targets....?

Big difference?
The hypocrisy is either that you accept that leaders are legitimate targets or you don't. The degree of 'chivalry' or who they target is irrelevant.

I dont think you can compare the killing of Zarqawi and the targetting of Bush and Blair. I see no hypocrisy at all on this one.

Zarqawi has nothing to do with the state of Iraq, he is a Jordanian Al Queda terrorist who is only interested in Iraq as a battlezone to have a pop at US/UK military personnel. (but by proxy mainly - the civilians - his fellow muslims/Islamic brothers BTW, are taking all the casualties from his bombs!)

He isn't a "leader" , with anything to do with the nation state of Iraq. Or am I missing something?

I also disagree with your second statement. In the end the US/UK policy on Iraq is misguided but there objective now is to settle the country down (alright - so they can have a convenient middle east ally!) - unlike Zarqawi who just wants to kill as many civilians as possible just to cause a civil war which would lead to an even bigger bloodbath. If he was interested in getting the UK/US out of Iraq he wouldnt be doing this - as we are far more likely to leave if the country wasnt in such chaos!

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 09 Jun 2006, 12:31

I'm sure all the civilians that have been maimed for life, or had their families killed, will find the fact that they weren't deliberately targeted very reassuring.

No I'm sure they don't - your're right though we should of left Saddam to do it instead though and then dump them all in a mass grave. Didn't have many nice options the Iraq people did they!

Considering our military has managed to kill something like 100,000 civilians during their adventures in Iraq, it makes me wonder how many would have died if we were deliberately targeting them.

If they were deliverately targetting them , Im sure it would be in the 10's of millions - but without sounding an arse hole - Im not sure what relevenace this has?

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 09 Jun 2006, 12:49

Totally_Baffled wrote:If he was interested in getting the UK/US out of Iraq he wouldnt be doing this - as we are far more likely to leave if the country wasnt in such chaos!

If you think that a peaceful Iraq would mean the USA and UK leaving Iraq, then what have you been reading on this website? They are there to secure future oil supplies. They won't be leaving for decades, whether there's peace or not.

Maybe Zarqawi (and I'm not defending him by any means) understood this.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 09 Jun 2006, 13:01

WolfattheDoor wrote: If you think that a peaceful Iraq would mean the USA and UK leaving Iraq, then what have you been reading on this website? They are there to secure future oil supplies. They won't be leaving for decades, whether there's peace or not.

In fact, it's quite possible that the occupiers don't won't peace, because people would expect them to get out then (as TB's post suggests). Much better to have a reason to stay there,

Peter.

P.S. The true nature of what is happening in Iraq does matter, since its knowledge would make it less likely to happen elsewhere, such as Iran. A recent piece by Monbiot is good on this:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/06 ... brutalise/

GD · Post by GD » 09 Jun 2006, 13:06

TB, have you not read the PNAC plan? We're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. The resistance know that, and are making our lives as difficult as possible.

But, to take a sideways(ish) glance:

Can I ask where's our invasion force to free Burma from the brutal military dictatorship and install freedom and democracy?

Why can't Blair & Bush grease the rails to implementing a UN operation to halt the genocide that is currently taking place in Sudan?

Back to Iraq:

Who put Saddam in charge?

Who armed him to the teeth?

Who turned a blind eye to the massacres that took place under Saddam?

Who, after the 1st gulf war turned a blind eye to the Turkish slaughtering of Kurds in northern Iraq?

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 09 Jun 2006, 13:10

WolfattheDoor wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:If he was interested in getting the UK/US out of Iraq he wouldnt be doing this - as we are far more likely to leave if the country wasnt in such chaos!
If you think that a peaceful Iraq would mean the USA and UK leaving Iraq, then what have you been reading on this website? They are there to secure future oil supplies. They won't be leaving for decades, whether there's peace or not.

You are probably right - I should of been more clear - I mean as an "occupying force" (ie providing security , training the police/military etc)

No doubt the UK/US will retain bases there like we do in other countries for many decades.

Yes its for the oil ( I agree - Im not going to argue against that point!

)- what remains unclear is if they have invaded to secure the oil supply to the "world market" - or secure there own supply first.

Both seem to be lose lose situations since its all very well having a secure supply but if the word financial system has collapsed because you are hogging the worlds supply then the UK/US will go down anyway!

Maybe Zarqawi (and I'm not defending him by any means) understood this.

What has Iraq go to do with Zaeqawi - he is a Jordanian Al Queda terrorist.

He doesnt give as shit about Iraqis, he just blows them up to get at the US/UK!

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 09 Jun 2006, 13:13

GD wrote:TB, have you not read the PNAC plan? We're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. The resistance know that, and are making our lives as difficult as possible.

But, to take a sideways(ish) glance:

Can I ask where's our invasion force to free Burma from the brutal military dictatorship and install freedom and democracy?

Why can't Blair & Bush grease the rails to implementing a UN operation to halt the genocide that is currently taking place in Sudan?

Back to Iraq:

Who put Saddam in charge?

Who armed him to the teeth?

Who turned a blind eye to the massacres that took place under Saddam?

Who, after the 1st gulf war turned a blind eye to the Turkish slaughtering of Kurds in northern Iraq?

See previous post GD (See above)

Im not disputing its about the oil - but there is a big difference between being an occupying force and having bases in an ally nation state.