MORE OIL FOR BLOOD.

The news that Iraq plans to significantly increase it’s oil production in the next year or so is being hailed by the BBC this evening as conclusive evidence that THIS is what motivated the US invasion. If only! The BBC are real truthers on this – incapable or unwilling of understanding that removing the Saddamite thugocracy was virtuous in itself! It is such an insult to all those brave servicemen and women – US and UK – who have made the ultimate sacrifice trying to give Iraqis a shot at democracy to put it all down to a lust for cheap oil. But since when did the BBC care about our military….

Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to MORE OIL FOR BLOOD.

  1. Martin says:

    You’re right David. If the Americans and Brits had just wanted cheap oil, they could have simply done what commie George Galloway did and arse lick Saddam.

    Why spend billions of dollars getting rid of him when they could have had cheap oil for next to nothing. In fact they could have given Saddam some military equipment for free (because as anyone who has a brain knows Saddam was not armed by the USA or UK but the Russians, Chinese and French) just to keep him sweet.

       0 likes

  2. pounce says:

    The pro human rights BBC, two men in custody and half the story.
    Two men one under American jurisdiction and the other under Iranian.
    One has been sentenced to death in Iran.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7480801.stm

    The other has had charges thrown at him in Guantanamo Bay.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7482385.stm

    Guess with which one the BBC plays the humans rights angle ?
    The pro human rights BBC, two men in custody and half the story.

       0 likes

  3. Peter says:

    All that the US and the UK needed to do was join in the Oil for Food scam run by Saddam and the UN.Worked for France and Russia.
    Saddam pretends he isn’t a despot,we pretend to sanction Iraq.

       0 likes

  4. Anonymous says:

    “its”

       0 likes

  5. gus says:

    Un-Fucking-believable, what the BBC has become.
    So 6 years after going into Iraq and spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. After rebuilding the countries infrastructure.
    We don’t take the oil.
    We just get them to pump more to keep prices down.
    Do these mothef fuckers at the BBC liev on a different planet than me?
    They have no shame at all. None.
    They need to push their agenda at all costs.

       0 likes

  6. Jason says:

    I awoke to the World Service this morning and the voice of a plum-mouthed BBC announcer informing me that the Iraq oilfields had been opened up for “exploitation” by international companies. Extra emphasis and revulsion applied to the word “exploitation”.

    If George Bush wanted to invade Iraq for the oil, then why did he give Saddam a chance to abide with the UN resolutions, and why did he give him the chance to step down as leader of Iraq? That was the deal – if Saddam stepped down as leader of his party and handed over power to his second in command, America would not invade Iraq.

    Sounds like a pretty risky thing to offer if the plan was “get the oil no matter what”.

    Lefties don’t understand that rebuilding Iraq’s crumbling oil infrastructure, which Saddam neglected for years, will cost billions of dollars and that ultimately, someone has to invest those billions of dollars and will expect (and indeed deserves) a return on that investment.

    Their entire argument is “America has opened up the way for international oil companies to steal the oil which belongs to the Iraqi people”.

    Yet without the investment of those international oil companies, the oil which “belongs to the Iraqi people” stays in the ground, worthless to anyone. The left doesn’t care about this. It would rather Iraqis sat in poverty upon unattainable oil reserves rather than have some greedy capitalists invest the money to extract that oil and pour billions into the Iraqi economy in the process. With the left, it’s all about symbolism and spite. They don’t care about people and never have done.

       0 likes

  7. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    When the agenda says “so its all about oil isn’t it” I just say “fine, go without”.

    They want the benefits of oil whilst pinching their nose at the filthy business of it. Fine, go without.

    Insist at the pump that you want petrol that is not tainted with the blood of Iraq. Ethical petrol please. Oh shit thats how many hundred quid a gallon!? I think I’ll walk to Glastonbury.

    Personally I wouldn’t have a problem if it WAS about oil.Though clearly it wasn’t.

       0 likes

  8. Pleiades says:

    beeboids dont seem to complain when oil comes from that weirdo hugo chavez, in fact, they think oil from him is super smashing great Jim Bowen style

       0 likes

  9. Robin says:

    Gus:

    Why do you feel it necessary to post swear words? It’s possible to make points about the BBC without them.

       0 likes

  10. Boss Hogg says:

    Robin,

    You sound too fragile to be reading blogs.

       0 likes

  11. Cockney says:

    Where was the BBC ‘hailing’ this ‘conclusive evidence’? I’d like a couple of quotes??

    As long as the Iraqi government is sufficiently independent to negotiate mutually advantageous commercial terms with international oil companies (which judging by some of the anti-occupation rhetoric recently it looks like it might be) I don’t see how anyone can really object to this.

    I’m with David really with caveats, the invasion has been an organisational shambles of the highest order but things are improving (albeit without much reporting) and if Iraq is a half decent democracy in 10 years then in a region that’s been a shambles forever it’ll probably have been worthwhile. And the least the Beeb should be doing is wholeheartedly supporting our troops and to a lesser extent the americans.

       0 likes

  12. MD says:

    David – agree with your sentiment entirely. But I hate how the word “truther” has crept into usage, since it means the opposite of what it appears to mean. If we have to use the word, shouldn’t we put inverted commas around it to emphasise that point? Keeping up standards and all that.

       0 likes

  13. George R says:

    At ‘Harry’s Place'(often described as politically ‘left-of-centre’), there is a complementary post entitled:

    “Oil corrupts” (by Neil D.),

    -which seems to have passed by the BBC.

    The opening two paragraphs to the piece are:

    “For many the Iraq war was about oil. Even back in 1991, I remember my anti-war friends bleating on about oil, and not really paying attention to the aggressive invasion of another state by a despot. Of course, such thoughts are simplistic, any Western actions in the Middle East can be viewed as being concerned about oil, although quite why the West supports the oil-free Israel seems to pass them by.

    “The Iraq war was not primarily about oil, but there is a role that oil plays in conflict. Oil causes internal conflicts. Despite the general decline in major conflicts, conflicts in oil producing countries have not fallen.”
    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/01/oil-corrupts/#comments

       0 likes

  14. Barry says:

    Removing Saddam? I thought it was about nulifying his weapons of mass destruction. Which everyone with half a brain knew were not there.

    If the war was about removing a tyrant from power, is this setting a precident? Are we going to kick Zimbabwe’s ass next? North Korea?

    If the powers that be had said yes, this is why we’re doing it, I’d have been 100% behind them. Because they were clearly lying (at the time and most definitely proven since) there MUST be an ulterior motive.

    Perhaps it wasn’t all about access to oil. Perhaps it was to foil the stock exchange planned (by Iran and Iraq) to buy and sell oil in euros instead of dollars? The latter is a delightfully nutty conspiracy theory, but entertaining nontheless.

    While I agree that the BBC should NOT be promoting the idea that it was all about oil, it’s frustrating for someone who was against the war from the beginning to read the lies that right wingers propogate about being “anti-war” equals “not supporting the troops”. Please stop it.

    And to the BBC: please stop promoting conspiracy theories. You might not like the war, or American foreign policy, but this sort of thing does nothing to end the violence, and makes you look quite lame.

    From my point of view, Iraq is a victim of political incompetence. There were clearly hidden agendas at work, but I doubt we will ever know the full truth. All we can do – left, right and centre – is support the troops and invest in the country to rejuevinate it and ensure democracy does, finally, become a reality. If that means foreign companies helping out with the oil, so be it. As long as any income earned is taxed and this tax paid to Iraq rather than America or Britain, the conspiracy theorists – at the BBC and elsewhere – won’t be able to back up their claims.

       0 likes

  15. Heron says:

    Cockney – could not have put it better myself.

    The one man who deserves nothing but praise in the Iraq debacle is General Petraeus. Thanks to him, the whole expedition may end up being seen historically as a major success. Yet his role has scarcely been covered by the BBC. Very poor indeed.

       0 likes

  16. Andy says:

    Some of the reasons the BBC hate America:

    America’s president is a God-fearing Christian who doesn’t snort cocaine, has overcome alcohol addiction and is conducting a war on Islamic terror.

    America is a successful, capitalist country.

    America supports Israel and vetoes anti-Israel UN resolutions.

    America, through George Bush continues to plough billions of dollars into aid projects worldwide. Others make pledges they don’t honour. Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits. As Bob Geldof said: “Clinton was a good guy, but he did fuck all.”

    America sends rescue workers to countries affected by disasters, including those unfriendly to America, while others sit and talk about how terrible it all is.

       0 likes

  17. Andy says:

    BBC apologists need to come up with verifiable facts and examples to support their case. The truth is, they don’t:

    Loaded post 9/11 Question Time audience bellowing out its hatred of America.

    Paintballing with terrorists.

    Calling for info on coalition troop movements in Iraq in the “interactive” section of the website, excusing it as a “bad phrase.”

    Mark Byford being “immensely proud” the BBC had interviewed the Taleban.

    Jeremy Bowen accusing Israel of “war crimes” over Lebanese civilian deaths resulting from Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah terrorists.

    Loaded Have Your Say during the Hamas/Fatah conflict in Gaza. Only apologists for Hamas terrorists invited.

    Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur insisting that Saeb Erekat was “selling out” the Palestinians by talking to the West and Israel without Hamas.

    Alan Johnston off “to have breakfast with the Prime Minister” (chief Gaza terrorist Ismael Haniyeh) on his release from his kidnappers.

    Beslan terrorists described as “gunmen” after shooting fleeing children in the back.

    Covering up the racial motivation of the genocide of black Muslims by the Islamic Arab terrorist regime in Khartoum.

    Portraying some of the Muslim Sudanese mob baying for the death of Gillian Gibbons as “friendly” with “smiling faces.”

    Describing the attacks by Egyptian Muslims on Copts and the destruction of churches with the words, “Violence flared.”

    Covering up the role of radical Islam in the decimation of Christian communities in Lebanon, Gaza and Bethlehem.

    Unable to mention the war on terror without using quotes or prefacing it with “so-called.”

    Banning the word terrorist.

       0 likes

  18. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    Like most liberal rhetoric – “it’s all about oil” fails the most elementary logical analysis.

    Bush,Cheney et al are supposed to be oil industry insiders – prepared to invade, butcher and exploit in pursuit of their black gold.

    The truth is almost the exact opposite.

    Shortage of oil supplies, exacerbated by speculation, has resulted in huge increases in the oil price and even huger profits for oil companies.

    If Bush & co wanted to maximise profits in the oil industry they could have stayed at home and adopted Kyoto.

       0 likes

  19. aviv says:

    Barry- I susepct that the ulterior motive you seek is simply the moral one that Saddam was a shitty little despot and it was right to remove him.

    The reason WMD/security rather than morality were invoked as the rationale for invasion is because Saddam was in violation of 17 or so UN resolutions concerning WMD. The US logically felt it would be more acceptable to act within the framework and process already initiated by the UN. Their mistake was in assuming that the UN actually had the integrity and moral backbone to enforce its own reolutions. Given the sordid, amoral nature of the UN this was naive, but that says rather more about the UN than it does about the US.

       0 likes

  20. Ryan says:

    “The BBC are real truthers on this – incapable or unwilling of understanding that removing the Saddamite thugocracy was virtuous in itself!”

    Well, to be fair to the BBC they are hardly likely to accuse Tony “nice but dim” Blair of having committed a war crime under the convention he himself signed, without good evidence. And since the evidence died with Dr David Kelly I think we can say that the Beeb will never repeat such accusations.

       0 likes

  21. Anonymous says:

    The news that Iraq plans to significantly increase it’s oil production in the next year or so is being hailed by the BBC this evening as conclusive evidence that THIS is what motivated the US invasion.

    Where is the BBC saying this?

    Link please.

       0 likes

  22. A couple of points on oil, Iraq, Saddam, Mugabe, Zimbabwe.
    Iraq has oil and Zimbabwe does not yet both countries have/had murderous dictators. However, the oil enabled Saddam to be a menace to more than Iraqis whereas Mugabe can only destroy his own people. That is why the US dealt with Saddam but not Mugabe. So yes, it is about oil or rather the threat which the oil revenues can engender when a dictator gets them.

       0 likes

  23. Tim says:

    Many of the oil contracts will be going to Russian companies.

    Lukoil are in for a good shout in many of them.

    Trust me, I know, not the sad BBC!

       0 likes

  24. Jip says:

    Barry I have yet to meet anyone who is “anti-war” (for this read anti-any-wars that our country fights) who loves our military, or indeed their country.

       0 likes

  25. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    Interesting tailpiece from Nicholas Witchells’ report from Iraq yesterday:-

    I can say that the Baghdad of mid-2008 is a place in which there is, finally, some tentative hope for the future.

    Perhaps instead of:-

    Baghdad sees tentative rebirth

    the headline should have read:-

    We got it wrong!

       0 likes

  26. Atlas shrugged says:

    If only! The BBC are real truthers on this – incapable or unwilling of understanding that removing the Saddamite thugocracy was virtuous in itself!

    Agree, sort of.

    Iraq increasing oil supply is proof of nothing one way or another. We don’t even know if this is true, and please don’t tell me it must be, because the BBC said so.

    ‘Truthers’ are interested in the TRUTH. Saddam’s demise is a nice , but relatively infinitely small ‘by-product’ of what is taking place in the middle east. This is surly self apparent. Although I agree it is a nice by-product that would be even nicer if the BBC mentioned it every now and again.

    I content the BBC are neither ‘truthers’ or providers of truth, on this or any other issue.

    The BBC is not anti Iraq war. The BBC in reality LOVES wars, death, famine, destruction, even natural disasters, along with the chaos they all produce. Perfectly LOVES them all, like a fish does water, as does the media in general.

    The main function of the BBC is only either to pretend to be against Republican and Conservative administrations, or actually be against them.

    The reason for this is both understandable practical and possibly even essential.

    It is so that the powers that control the BBC can continue to control both sides of the political debate. Thus ensuring that whatever agenda they wish to impose is accepted by the unsuspecting public.

    If the combined efforts of our controlled media do a really good job, they can easily persuade us into actually asking and paying for our own prison cells.

    Secret agendas are one bad BBC thing, hiding the TRUTH and otherwise KNOWN facts are other very bad BBC type things.

    We know the BBC lies about countless very important subjects. Such as climate change, recycling, political neutrality, corruption…………

    So David, what makes you so sure that the BBC can be trusted to tell the WHOLE truth about the events of 9/11?

    FACTS are FACTS.

    It makes no difference how many people believe a lie. It does not make a lie, the truth. Truth is not a democracy. Truth is not arrived at by having a vote on the matter at hand. It certainly is hardly ever arrived at by watching a film, the TV, or reading a news-paper. It may sometimes be found researching the internet, reading history and between the lines. While retaining a realistic attitude as to the inherent evilness of extremely long held elitist ideologies.

    IMO, and I have seen all the evidence I personally need to see, is that the official story regarding 9/11 is, for want of more dismissive words, COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

    As this simply massive event now happened almost 7 years ago. Which is longer then the entire duration of WW2. We have an intellectual requirement not to forget why we are there.

    The reason given at the time was our own personal security, not that of Iraqis. You David, would do well to remember this.

    We can not make the world a perfect place. IMO trying to do so will result in making the world a whole lot worse.

    What we can do is set fine examples, display honesty, empathy and goodwill to all, and hope for the best.

    Can we honestly say, we as in the western powers, have been doing this consistently for any amount of time? If we had, it may have worked. We never have, which is why it never had a chance of working.

    Last time we justified things such as Dresden Nagasaki and the rape of Berlin, with the might and nastiness of the combined Axis Powers. 63 years later, we justify murderous overkill, with a few thousand rather pissed off rag heads, on pick up trucks.

    Come on David open your eyes. It may not be nice what you might see, but it hopefully will leave you less confused.

       0 likes

  27. Ben says:

    Perhaps instead of:-

    Baghdad sees tentative rebirth

    the headline should have read:-

    We got it wrong!
    John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 01.07.08 – 12:04 pm | # – 12:04 pm | #

    Not really. Nothing is or has been assured, Petraeus is one of the first to admit that.

       0 likes

  28. Sue says:

    Neil | 01.07.08 – 12:33 pm
    So that’s where Alex has run off to!

    A toast to his new real friends not the sham ones that pained him here.

       0 likes

  29. koop says:

    con coughlin thinks the bbc’s talking shit as well.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/con_coughlin/blog/2008/07/01/bbcs_shameful_antiiraq_bias

       0 likes

  30. Joel says:

    Is this post based on anything? an online report? Tv or radio?

    Where has it been ‘hailed by the BBC this evening as conclusive evidence that THIS is what motivated the US invasion’.

    Where? when?

    Its very easy to give us your opinion and accuse the BBC of holding the opposite postion. It’s rhetoric, have you dispensed with even pretending to provide evidence?

       0 likes

  31. Martin says:

    Barry: I’m glad you have no faith in the UN. You say everyone knew Saddam had no WMD. Well the UN didn’t.

    Can I take it you like me doesn’t believe the UN about climate change either?

       0 likes

  32. koop says:

    Is this post based on anything? an online report? Tv or radio?
    Joel | Homepage | 01.07.08 – 1:15 pm |

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/con_coughlin/blog/2008/07/01/bbcs_shameful_antiiraq_bias
    On the contrary Nicholas Witchell’s report on last night’s Ten O’Clock News was full of snide remarks about how oil was the reason we went to war in Iraq, and now the West is gleefully cashing in.

       0 likes

  33. PaulS says:

    Ben | 01.07.08 – 12:16 pm

    We got it wrong! ……Not really. Nothing is or has been assured, Petraeus is one of the first to admit that.

    Surely that should be: Goodness me no, the BBC has never claimed the surge won’t work, the BBC never editorialises like that! 🙂

       0 likes

  34. David Vance says:

    Atlas,

    I am not confused – my eyes are wide open.

       0 likes

  35. aviv says:

    excellent piece of cultural relativism from al beeb. Presume this is for educational purposes:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/sept_11/west_01.shtml

       0 likes

  36. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Neil | 01.07.08 – 12:33 pm |

    Thanks for that link. Famous? No, but very amusing indeed.

    Looks like (the banned troll formerly known as Angry Young) Alex just can’t keep away from this site (like someone else we know), and has been lying on his new blog:

    Brace Yourself Aunty…

    I just posted a not-very-nice comment, telling him he’s a liar.

    Alex, why do you even bother looking in here anymore? What’s the point? Do you really need that kind of emotional stimulation to get up in the morning?

       0 likes

  37. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    “Removing Saddam? I thought it was about nulifying his weapons of mass destruction. Which everyone with half a brain knew were not there.” Barry

    So the whole world had ‘half a brain’?

    Presumably so as that’s nearly all the worlds experts and almost every country, as they all believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the debate was on how to be rid of that thread, not whether he had them.

    Or were all the half brainers like you doing sanctions knowingly for nothing? For shame on you Barry.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, sadly it isn’t available at the time.

       0 likes

  38. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    Allan[email protected]

    Mugabe is a vile tyrant who should be removed, by force if necessary, I agree.

    You may well be right the US will not do it.

    Unfortunately there are vile tyrants all around the world that are not removed.

    It may be that the oil has some influence, but frankly I doubt it was decisive.
    Afghanistan had no oil, it did not prevent an invasion.
    Venezuela has oil and Chavez hates the US, but there is no invasion.

    How many countries managed to do ALL of these:
    invaded two of its neighbours on seperate occasions in unprovoked attacks,
    caused truly terrible slaughter,
    aspired to weapons of mass destruction,
    acquired wmd,
    used wmd on its opponents externally,
    used its wmd on opponents internally,
    and was a continuing threat to the world
    – only Saddam and Iraq qualifies for all of that, that is why they were unique.

    It is true that Bush and the US were convinced that from Iraq after a reletively short painless war would democracy spread throughout the Arab and muslim world good for people and good for business, a very poor misjudgement of the geopolitical realities.

       0 likes

  39. deegee says:

    Of course the war was about oil. Did you think it was about dates and goats?

    •Without oil Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have been able to buy the weapons to fight Iran, invade Kuwait, murder his citizens and threaten his neighbours.
    •Without oil Saddam would not have had the funds for WMD or to fund some of the BBC’s favourite terrorists. (I don’t think militant was the acceptable euphemism, back then.
    •Without oil Saddam would have had nothing to threaten the economic stability of the West.
    •Without oil Saddam would have been just another genocidal dictator to be ignored.

    Barry | 01.07.08 – 9:59 am
    Removing Saddam? I thought it was about nulifying his weapons of mass destruction. Which everyone with half a brain knew were not there.

    Apparently the security services of America, Britain, Israel and France were stupid. They all said at the time they thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He had definitely tried to get them in the past. He had used chemical WMD against Iran and his own Kurdish and Shiite citizens and that sugests if there was a chance he had them he would have used them.

    The real irony was that Saddam thought he had something to hide which is why he played games with the inspectors. Either he thought he had them or just as likely wanted us to believe he had them. I guess the joke is on him.

    If the war was about removing a tyrant from power, is this setting a precident? Are we going to kick Zimbabwe’s ass next? North Korea?

    Perhaps, the window of opportunity was there? Who is the ‘we’ anyway? At the time Bush had support – times change.

    Whatever the reasons, one of the worst tyrants of the twentieth century is no more. I find it hard to believe that anybody could really object.

    Personally, I find the BBC’s dismissive attitude to British soldiers in Iraq, offensive. They clearly are not stealing Iraq’s oil.

       0 likes

  40. Tim says:

    I have worked extensively in Iraq, both for the UN as an election official and as a private security advisor (murdering mercenary according to the BBC)

    We would often sit dumb founded watch BBC world paint a very different picture, than the one outside.

       0 likes

  41. gus says:

    Pot Kettle…..are you stupid or do you work for the BBC.
    The question was not IF Iraq had WMD’s. They had them.
    The issue was. Did Iraq follow it’s own surrender terms and PROVE the dismantling and disposal of the WMD’s.
    THEY WOULD NOT. THEY DID NOT.
    They were given 16 U.N. chances to comply.
    THEY DID NOT.
    They were given one more chance.
    THEY DID NOT COMPLY.
    You, (as a moron) can take their word for it.
    We (America) did not.
    Comply or die.
    Saddam picked #2. Along the way, Saddam Hussein was deposed, his RAPIST/MURDERER sons, attacked U.S and coalition troops….
    AND GOT FREE AUTOPSIES for their trouble.
    Pot, Kettle. Go to hell.

       0 likes

  42. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Pot-Kettle-Black | 01.07.08 – 5:05 pm |

    – only Saddam and Iraq qualifies for all of that, that is why they were unique.

    “Unique”? So what? Why does that make it no good? Oh, wait, I get it now. You think the other rogue regimes who have actual nuclear weapons are just as easy to remove from power. Also, it’s obvious that you subscribe to the theory that we should only remove a nasty dictator from power if….well, we really shouldn’t. Isn’t that what you’re real point is?

       0 likes

  43. gus says:

    Libs don’t care about dictators, human rights, WOMENS RIGHTS, nor do they concern themselves with RIGHT V. WRONG.
    Libs want power.

       0 likes

  44. gus says:

    David Prieser, the LEFT, hasn’t thought it through.
    If a “regime” HAS NUKES. What are we to do?
    In LIBTARD THEORY, we can…NEGOTIATE with the ROGUE NUKE HOLDER. We can REASON with them.
    It’s very very SCARY that LIBS actually hold this view.
    Furthermore, LIBS, believe that the ROGUE’S possession of NUKES, is OUR FAULT or is THE ROGUE STATES EQUIVALENT RIGHT.
    Liberalism is a DISEASE.

       0 likes

  45. BrianSJ says:

    On this occasion, I must disagree with Biased BBC. There was perfectly clear DoD documentation that it was all about oil. That the exercise has backfired is a separate matter.

       0 likes

  46. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    gus,

    Were you tripping when you wrote that last one?

    Work for the appalling needing to be abolished BBC what brought that accusation on – its pathetic.

    I said he had wmd.

    I said everyone thought he still had them.

    On the contrary I supported an invasion of Iraq and still think it was the right thing.

    So, no, you can go to hell, as you are clearly the moron.

    david preiser

    I point out the uniqueness to show why Iraq simply had to be invaded when other tyrannies around the world are not even though the moral case for doing so is still strong.

    Are some of you just reading one sentance and ignoring the posts, its my only conclusion.

    If you can post clearly about something and then get attacked for agreeing about a view which is actually being agreed with I totally despair.

    I just seem to be attacked because I am not an extreme conservative.

    Well what with that and the appalling BBC trolls, hillhunt in his many guises and others, I have just had enough.

    Its over to a viewing only brief for me on B-BBC. Goodbye.

       0 likes

  47. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Pot-Kettle-Black | 02.07.08 – 10:49 am |

    I point out the uniqueness to show why Iraq simply had to be invaded when other tyrannies around the world are not even though the moral case for doing so is still strong.

    Are some of you just reading one sentance and ignoring the posts, its my only conclusion.

    If you can post clearly about something and then get attacked for agreeing about a view which is actually being agreed with I totally despair.

    I just seem to be attacked because I am not an extreme conservative.

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. The WMD excuse was the last resort of the Bushies, after everyone cried that the “moral case” wasn’t good enough. They cry about a “moral case” for Mugabe, but when push comes to shove, they only shed crocodile tears.

    Sadaam was unique in that he screwed around enough to lead enough people to believe that he either had them or was waiting for the heat to die down to build them up again.

    You also missed another way in which Sadaam was unique: besides North Korea, no other tyranny was legally at war with the US and the UN. The “No-fly Zone” was enforced by regular air patrols for years, Sadaam’s artillery took regular pot shots, and there were already enough UN resolutions passed which authorized military force.

    No other dictator had that going for him. The “moral case” was far from the only reason to take him out.

    I don’t know whom you think you are agreeing with when you say that getting rid of Sadaam and installing some sort of democracy in the Middle East is a bad idea.

    I do think it’s a bit unfair to characterize my comment as an attack on you. And I’m hardly an extreme conservative.

       0 likes

  48. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    “I don’t know whom you think you are agreeing with when you say that getting rid of Sadaam and installing some sort of democracy in the Middle East is a bad idea.”

    ???

    Errm, I’m saying it was a GOOD idea.

       0 likes

  49. Pot-Kettle-Black says:

    The only proviso I made was I only said that it was a misjudgement to think that the war would be relatively short and painless and a worse misjudgment to think the Arab and muslim world would take the example and rush to democracy any decade soon.

       0 likes