Question Time!

[GD]

Great, now I have got myself mad again on a Friday afternoon.

It's the heat...

[Totally_Baffled]

Just to jump back a bit...

Every arguement for brutally invading Iraq falls flat on its face. It is only not totally realised by the public due to the totally complicity in the media and lower level government not to discuss the issues including:

a) mitlitary support of Saddam prior to GW1 and during Iran Iraq war
b) Saddam death figures in Iraq - it is hard to find true figures (and you will notice that this is off agenda, and people only talk about "mass graves"). It appears that prior to GW1 the attoricities were a) in a civil war against the Kurds (similar to Turkey in the 1990s and supported with our weaponry) and incidents in the hundreds per year throughout Iraq. After GW1 the Shia uprising (after we told them to and then took all their heavy artillery away and left them high and dry) lead to estimates of around 40,000 killed.
c) Coalition death figures - GW1 - 250,000 estimate, GW2 (the slowly death through sanctions - estimates of 1,000,000), GW3 estimates a year ago of over 100,000. Grand total - 1,350,000.....and anyone who says they don't count as we didn't mean it can feck off.
d) Saddams reasons for invading Kuwait - crippling debt due to iran/iraq war, historic disagreements, sideways drilling, US giving the nod
e) civilian deaths due to coalition troops (the majority)
f) real figures of popular insurgent attacks (60 a day against coalition troops), and not just higlighted suicide bombers by the nutter element. i.e. a popular resistance.
f) building of permanent bases etc
g) sell off of Iraq, law changes, oil back in dollars
g) reasons for GW2 including, showing the world the US was willing to stand up to its new foreign policy, control of middle east, removal of troops from SA, payback for Daddy, injection into the military industrial complex, domestic policy disaster avoidance, oil traded in Euros....and a big one - the knowledge that after Iran Iraq war, GW1 and sanctions the Iraqi army couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

But then again, we British mean well and only do things for the right reasons.

Great, now I have got myself mad again on a Friday afternoon.

Newmac - I hate to point out your wasted rant (because it was a very good one ) - neither myself or GD disagrees with you

Whether the invasion was about oil ,WMD , the revenge of bush junior , or a mispelling on the war order (maybe they meant to invade Iran in the first place - after all the evidence for nuclear reactors in Iran was far more substantial than Iraqs lol) - the policy was misguided.

I was just pointing out some double standards in the argument of those tha oppose it as well i.e If you think it was about oil - then go ahead and try and live without it! (which what most people have realised what it was really about!)

As for comment casualties - I agree - but as long you accept the flip side of that coin, ie the next time the balkans kicks off, or there is genocide in x,y, or z country - dont expect any help from the UK/US (whether this is via the UN or not) i.e we cannot intervene - the potential for civilian loss is too high.

One final point, its all very well quoting the 1.3m figure - but you could argue (just playing Devils advocate for a moment) that if the ME goes up . and the oil gas goes with it , then a lot more people than 1.3m are gonna die and in very short time scales!

I say let them slaughter themselves and keep out of it , then we can all sit back and laugh at the PC do gooders are saying " are you not going to do anything?" - pffft

Tough world ain't it!

[wayne72]

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?

So the our media tells us. I'm not so sure these so called "evil" tyrants are "evil" no one goes out to be "evil" everyone in real life as a cause they believe to be good. Even "Hitler" thought he was doing good.

[AndySir]

Veering slightly from the GW for my first post, but I recall on Question Time last month a young lady asking the Labout muppet where we got our Uranium from (in relation to Mr Blair's pre-emption of the energy review) and whether this was more sustainable or reliable. The Labout muppet clearly had no idea and dodged the question extremely badly.

Good question, thought I, and I include this link - http://www.uic.com.au/nip41.htm

Most appears to come from Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger and Russia - a familiar list, with the execption of Australia, I'm sure the PO folks would agree. But most importantly the table at the bottom of the page where world uranium mining output is shown to be around half of current reactor requirements! And the mines are already depleting.

Apparently current shortfall is made up of recovered materials from the weapons program, which I have no problem with in itself but obviously isn't a sustainable resourse. New mines are expected but they have a ten year or so lag, similar to the new oil fields. What the hell are these new reactors supposed to run on?

To paraphrase Mr Burroughs... Still the Labout muppet plays that old army game from here to eternity - get there firstest with the brownest nose.

[RevdTess]

Welcome to Powerswitch

Apparently current shortfall is made up of recovered materials from the weapons program, which I have no problem with in itself but obviously isn't a sustainable resourse.

Though theres something about weapons of mass destruction that seem almost... abiotic in their ability to replenish themselves...