Iranian strike ‘a disaster’


by Sunny
29th October, 2007 at 11:48 am    

That is the International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei:

I have not received any information that there is a concrete, active nuclear weapon program going on right now. … We have information that there have been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now. … But have we seen having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns.

Video via Think Progress. Meanwhile a report in Haaretz says:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published tomorrow.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.

We know all about politicians who manipulate people for their own gain don’t we? Incidentally, I’m a signatory to the Hands Off People of Iran campaign.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East






176 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:18 pm  

    Now that we’ve exhausted all the IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE headlines, it’ll be fun coming up with ones about Iran

    Georgie Porgie accused of trying to end fight his dad didn’t have the balls to start: IRAN, BUSH BOY, IRAN

    US Allies claim to have Iran for breakfast: IRAN FLAKES

    Ehud Olmert will not be swayed: IRAN MAN

    After getting bombarded for a few weeks without much of a fight, Iran starts its blitz: IT NEVER IRANS, IT POURS

    Inevitably, in-fighting breaks the ranks in Iran: TROUBLE IN MOSSAD SIDE

    And the guaranteed The Sun headline, exposing the Iran army as a bunch of monkeys

    IRAN UTANGS

  2. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:21 pm  

    International Atomic Energy Agency chairman Mohammed ElBaradei

    Who has never succeeded in stopping a single country from developing nuclear weapons, and spends all his time condemning Israel for having the temerity to try and prevent a second Holocaust.

    Incidentally, I’m a signatory to the Hands Off People of Iran campaign.

    Thus condemning the People of Iran to 50 more years of the Mullahs – just like how you were happy to sit back and allow Saddam and his sons to treat Iraq like a giant prison camp for another 50 years.

    So, the question we must ask you is this: do you actually care about people in these countries, or are you content to sit back, safe in your cosy liberal democracy where you won’t get hung for being gay or for writing on a banknote?

  3. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:31 pm  

    Morgoth, How many people did Saddam and his sons kill and how many warring factions did they stop killing each other, compared to the number of people killed and allowed to kill since US saved them, you blinkered prat?

  4. Chairwoman — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

    Are you keeping your hands off the same ‘People of Iran’ who elected and support the present dangerous and repressive regime, or do you have another one in mind?

  5. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:38 pm  

    Interesting read from the Sunday Times, taking in the for and against, (for a change) Will Bush really attack Iran?

    The pros and cons of launching an attack on Iran

    The arguments for

    - Protects Israel from a potential nuclear holocaust. President Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel will be wiped off the map

    - Reduces the risk to the West of a “dirty” bomb in big cities. Iran is a sponsor of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah

    - Forestalls the development of Iranian long-range nuclear missiles aimed at Europe and America

    - Prevents Iran from intimidating or attacking its Sunni Arab neighbours

    - Creates the space for potential regime change and installation of a pro-western government in Tehran

    The arguments against

    - Sets back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by only a few years. US intelligence has not mapped out all the potential Iranian nuclear sites

    - Unleashes a wave of attacks on Israel and the West by Hezbollah and other terrorist proxy groups Closes the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring above $100 a barrel and possibly creating a global economic crisis

    - Destabilises Iraq, plunging the country into a new round of terror, creating further regional instability

    - Creates a global public relations disaster. Intensifies antiAmericanism which critics argue that President Bush has made worse. Fosters a new generation of fundamentalist militants and terrorists

  6. ZinZin — on 29th October, 2007 at 12:52 pm  

    Chairwoman

    Iran is not a democracy and not everyone shouts “Death to America” at the top of their voices anymore. Still good to have you back.

  7. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:01 pm  

    Are you keeping your hands off the same ‘People of Iran’ who elected and support the present dangerous and repressive regime, or do you have another one in mind?

    Yeah, and next you’ll be telling us that Saddam Hussein got 99$ of the vote?

  8. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:02 pm  

    and how many warring factions did they stop killing each other,

    Don’t tell me, Saddam also made the trains run on time as well?

  9. Nyrone — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:16 pm  

    Morgoth, what do you feel should be done in Iran?

  10. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:18 pm  

    Morgoth, firstly, sorry about the prat comment. I read your comments on the abortion thread with much interest. Saddam wasn’t a good guy, nor are the countless Mugabes and Kim Il Sungs of the world. The world is full of bad people. Killing the people that are under their dictatorship is the same as punishing the whole classroom just to teach the bully a lesson.

    I just hate the hypocrisy that comes with the thinking that says democracy = freedom. It reminds me of the civilisation = freedom that the western world used to justify killing black people all over the world

    If you’re going to pick and choose the despots you’re going to topple at the cost of innocent lives lost times thousands, then it’s only fair to ask what you’re motives really are

    And yeah, I reckon Saddam did make the trains run on time. Nothing like fearing a horse’s head in your bed to keep you punctual

    Still a darned sight better to live in the fear of a tyrant than your whole family getting bombed just to get rid of him

  11. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:18 pm  

    via Oliver Kamm

    France Dismisses IAEA, Says Iran Trying to Build Bomb, AFP Says

    By Heather Langan

    Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — French Defense Minister Herve Morin contradicted the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency and said his government has evidence Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, Agence France-Presse reported.

  12. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:43 pm  

    Morgoth, what do you feel should be done in Iran?

    Several points to bear in mind:

    1) Iran is not like Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran still has a functioning civic society that survives the Mullahs. When you talk to any Iranian exile, this is the important point that comes out (and I’ve talked to and worked with quite a few). The problem is, however, that there is no prospect of this civic society being strong enough to overthrow the Mullahs. Effectively, Iran is held hostage by a medievalist minority clique, dominated by the Basji and the Revolutionary Guards. The Basji are a gang of illiterate thugs – like the Saudi Mutaween on steroids, and the Revolutionary Guarda are effectively a group of gansters with massive amounts of weaponry.

    2) The young people of Iran are overwhelmingly secular – I’ve heard various estimates that, if the Mullahs were to disappear tomorrow, 50% of the country would turn Bahai and another 25% would go back to Zoroastrianism. They are also overwhelmingly pro-Western. They want to join the modern western world. They don’t want a nunch of black-robed crazies holding them back.

    Now, I feel there are two possible paths of action at this point:

    The first one, the ideal path is to defeat the Mullahs by the power of good ole’ Western Culture. This is what I can the Air-Force-One approach, i.e. imagine Air Force One landing in Tehran tomorrow with a “hello! we’re here to take back our embassy, and by the way, all you Iranian young people are invited to come and study in the US! Here are your visas, And here are billions of dollars of our scantily-clad imports to entertain you with. Come and join the modern world!” message. Britney Spears vs Khomenei – there’s no contest (and I speak as one who hates Britney Spears with every inch of me)

    However, we cannot ignore the fact that the Mullahs have been conducting a war against the West ever since 1979. They are responsible for arming Hezbollah and Hamas, two utterly genocidal organisations (and the Revolutionary Guards are working with sections of Al-Queda), for carrying out numerous terrorist acts around the world, for numerous assasinations, they have said repeatedly that if they get a nuke they will launch it at Israel. In short, the Mullahs cannot be allowed to get their hands on a nuke. And it is this factor, the ticking time bomb of the potentional Iranian aquirement of nuclear weapons, that means that the first approach could not work, no matter how much we would like it to.

    The second one is for Germany and France to stop propping up the regime via vast subsidised export credits (just like how they propped up Saddam beforehand). This, combined with extra action against Iranian terrorists abroad (including the Quds force acting in Iraq, and especially Hamas and Hezbollah), and enchanced sanctions may put the breaks on the Mullahs. But I fear it won’t. Because this is a regime that cleared minefields using children, for feck’s sake. Little things like sanctions are nothing compared to the allure of the return of the 12th iman, as the ravings of Asmadasadinnerjacket has amply demonstrated.

    And that is why, if things keep going the way they are, it appears that the only course of action to deal with the Mullahs will be military. I fear they cannot be stopped by any other method. I say Mullahs, because, as I’ve said above, behind the mullahs is a powerful and modern and civilised nation, Persia, struggling to make itself heard.

  13. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:48 pm  

    Still a darned sight better to live in the fear of a tyrant than your whole family getting bombed just to get rid of him

    Kismet, I have a real problem with that sentiment. Primarily because its so easy to say it from the safety of a Western Democracy.

    That is so what irks me so much about many of the people here and on t’internet who are so eager to condemn people to a lifetime of tyranny. I don’t advocate the overthrow of tyrannies lightly – I’ve lost close familiy members due to terrorist violence so I am well aware of the consequences of holding and advocating a particular political view.

    But in the 21st century, is it not an utter disgrace that so many of the human race are still suffering under fascist dictatorships?. And that so many people are apprarently willing to give those same tyrannies a free pass, all in the name of “anti-imperialism” and “international stability”.

  14. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:50 pm  

    Morgoth, firstly, sorry about the prat comment. I read your comments on the abortion thread with much interest.

    Heh, no worries. I’ve been called much worse. Abortion is a real hotspot with me – I just cannot understand why some men are so obsessed with controlling women’s bodies. I find it extremely deeply disturbing, nay sickening in fact.

  15. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:53 pm  

    Interesting comment there Morgoth, but I can’t imagine large parts leaving Islam if the mullahs were to go. The Quds, Revolutionary Guards etc all come from families, have brothers and sisters, they will of course have localised grips on communities too.

    Hell, you receive death threats if you leave Islam in BRADFORD!

  16. aDM — on 29th October, 2007 at 1:58 pm  

    OT: Morgoth

    I apppreciate your comments on this issue here and at Harrys Place.

    “I just cannot understand why some men are so obsessed with controlling women’s bodies. I find it extremely deeply disturbing, nay sickening in fact”

    So do I.

  17. aDM — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:02 pm  

    Thats in reference to abortion obviously. But on this issue i think youre on the money also as it goes, especially highlighting point no 2 above.

  18. Random Guy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:12 pm  

    Morgoth, would you support a shock and awe regime change in Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and North Korea too seeing as how concerned you are about ‘other people’s lives’ (yeah, I am sure you think about them all the time).

    Also, when talking about Iran arming Hamas and Hezbollah (which in actuality is supplying weapons much the same way as the UK/US supply Israel with weapons) don’t forget the Contra years with our boy Reagan and the Israeli government and Mossad.

    Much of what you say rings a bell somewhere, but most of it is out of context and not grounded in fact. I swear, what will it take for people like you to understand? Iraq is completely fucked up compared to the Saddam years thanks to this government and the U.S. That you have the temerity to advocate military action in other parts of the world similar to this, just shows how much the balance of reality in your point of view is completely skewed.

  19. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:16 pm  

    French Defense Minister Herve Morin contradicted the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency and said his government has evidence Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, Agence France-Presse reported.

    Like all those politicians who contradicted them the first time around about WMD in Iraq…?

  20. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:19 pm  

    Morgoth, ever since the Iraq invasion, I’ve found myself in this weird position where I hear myself siding with the very people that made me flush my given religion (Islam) down the proverbial. Of course I hate mullahs who beat women for wearing nail polish and stone gay people and ban music and so on and so forth

    But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to kill thousands of people, especially when the solution doesn’t work. Iraq is far worse off then it was before.

    Look at Afghanistan. On one hand you read a happy story about an all-women football team in Kabul, on the other the depressing news that 1 in 8 Afghanis are forced to work in the poppy trade spewing out 95% of the world’s heroin

    Up until you can offer a solution that really is better for the people under the tyrant’s, screaming WAR at the top of your voice and bombing the fuck out of everyone and putting the rest of us in the cosy safety of the western world at the mercy of renegade terrorists vowing revenge IS NOT THE ANSWER

    Oh and I’m pro-life. Not in the sense that I don’t respect a woman’s decision to do what she chooses to do with her body. But because I want people who are alive to stay alive

  21. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:20 pm  

    Thus condemning the People of Iran to 50 more years of the Mullahs – just like how you were happy to sit back and allow Saddam and his sons to treat Iraq like a giant prison camp for another 50 years.

    The alternative is of course that I condemn the Iraqis to a country ravaged by civil war, people blowing themselves up left, right and centre, the infrastructure is completely falling apart and there’s terrorists galore running amok, while the US finds a suitable time to cut and run.

    Well done puttar. You’re really good at this stuff.

  22. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:21 pm  

    Random Americans are stupid link

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1290248,00.html

  23. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:28 pm  

    Well, Iraq did have WMD’s, surely, since the Americans sold them to Saddam in the first place? Saddam did gas 180,000 people, remember?

    Sunny, do you think that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons? How would you feel if the Iranian mullahs, who fund miltitias groups abroad, had access to nuclear weapons?

    it’s about probablities, Iranian elements will almost definitely be trying to obtain nuclear weapon status. The big question is, what do we do about it?

    If you’re against the strike flat out, which of course your are, then fair enough. But let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that Iran would not try to become a nuclear power… After all, israel has lots of nukes, right?

  24. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:29 pm  

    “do you think that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons? ”

    Who is more likely to use them? Iran, if provoked, or USA, who’ll be doing the provoking in the first place?

  25. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:37 pm  

    So you’re willing to argue that Iran does no intention of developing nuclear weapons, since you believe the US is more likely to use them than Iran?

  26. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    Ah it happens, Random Guy, yes, I do support the removal of the tyrannies in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi, Burma and elsewhere. I supported the overthrow of Saddam since 1989 – *before the first Gulf War*.

    Juvenile insults again, Sunny? If we’re going to get all ethnic here, I think we Ulstermen have an apt term for you as well: “Gobshite”

  27. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:47 pm  

    It boggles the mind you know. How anyone can see the appalling results of US intervention in Iraq and still thinks it’s wise to let them do it all over again

    I always wondered what kind of people endorsed the huge bonuses of people like Metrolink who are crap at their jobs

    A dubious pleasure to meet you

  28. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:48 pm  

    Jonz, there’s a major reason why countries want to have nuclear power

    To protect themselves from USA

    Look at North Korea. Don’t mess with them in case they use their nukes

  29. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:51 pm  
  30. ChrisC — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:57 pm  

    “Well, Iraq did have WMD’s, surely, since the Americans sold them to Saddam in the first place? Saddam did gas 180,000 people, remember?”

    Indeed, Iraq did have WMDs at least at some stage.
    But they were (probably) not sold by the US – which according to the Stockholm Intl Peace Research Institute accounted for only 1% of Iraqi weapons purchases from 1973 to the first Gulf war.
    USSR accounted for close to 60% followed by France (surprise) and China.

  31. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 2:59 pm  

    Looks like i’m gonna have to get my “stop the war” placards out again..same old war, just a new place…seriously..American politicians are thick as pig shit if they think this is gonna help “world peace”

  32. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:01 pm  

    Kismet, my basic point I made above still stands. You are sitting comfortably in a western democracy, where you cannot be hung for being gay, or where there are no jails for toddlers, advocating that other people be denied the basic freedoms that you take for granted. That is what is mind-boggling here.

  33. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

    Morgoth, are gay people running freely through the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan today? Are children frolicking freely through the meadows without a care in the world? Have all those basic freedoms they lacked now come to them in shackles made of daisy chains and big bright bows?

    No.

    Your way failed.

    Give it a rest.

  34. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:14 pm  

    Kismet,
    if things had gone your way, Saddam would still be in charge in Iraq, the Taliban would still be in charge in Afghanistan. Yours is, to paraphrase Orwell, the self-centered pacifism of fools.

    The hardest thing to see was the cell used to hold children before they were murdered. My translator Alan read some of the messages carved into the wall. “I was ten years old. But they changed my age to 18 for execution.”

    At least have the decency to admit that your way would mean giving genocidal fascists and dictators the world over a green light to continue their oppression and mass murder on an industrial scale.

  35. ChrisC — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

    It would help if those who would oppose military action did – unlike the Stop the War Coalition or even CND – not take the “Iran should be allowed a nuclear program” line or the “we musn’t criticise them it just helps Bush” line.

  36. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:16 pm  

    If you’re against the strike flat out, which of course your are, then fair enough. But let’s not kid ourselves in thinking that Iran would not try to become a nuclear power… After all, israel has lots of nukes, right?

    I am against a strike flat-out but I’m not supportive of the Iranian regime (as the HOPOI signature suggests) and you’re right in that they are probably trying to develop nukes. But they don’t have nukes yet and I think everything should be done to stop them developing that, through inspections and sanctions, not attacks.

    Incidentally, I’m afraid I don’t buy the view that j0nz and Morgoth are saying this out of the goodness of their hearts. You think you are, but there is a tendency to focus on Iran’s human rights abuses while completely ignoring what’s going on in other countries on a much bigger scale. Was any of you involved in raiasing your voice when Muslims were being massacred in India 3-4 years ago? I was… and I was threatened by Hindu fundamentalists too.

    My point is that certain clashes fit nicely into your prejudices so you support them, and ignore what else is going on around the world. Doesn’t make you guys very consistent or credible.

    Morgoth – puttar means son.

  37. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:17 pm  

    Morgoth – puttar means son.

    I figured as much, sunshine.

  38. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:18 pm  

    Morgoth,

    For what it’s worth, the Taliban saw the growing of opium as unislamic. Well done America for making it okay again

  39. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:20 pm  

    For those that think attacking Iran is a good idea in case they attack us first…

    Imagine this standing in a court of law

    “I beat him up cos I’m sure he was going to start on me”

    That’s not an excuse that follows the basic principles of right and wrong

    That’s how gangsters operate

  40. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:23 pm  

    This has been America’s only recourse

    (and no 9/11 doesn’t suggest the Iraqis started it first as 90% of the bombers were from Saudi Arabia)

    USA: So yeah, we have to fight them because, trust us, they’ll fight us

    (USA drops several bombs. The Iraqis retaliate by blowing up something)

    USA: See? Told ya

    You can’t justify violence based on probability and knowing there’ll be a retaliation to validate your actions

  41. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:23 pm  

    For what it’s worth, the Taliban saw the growing of opium as unislamic.

    Again with the “but they made the trains run on time!” argument. Henry Kissenger would be proud of you, Kismet.

  42. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    You can’t justify violence based on probability and knowing there’ll be a retaliation to validate your actions

    Kismet, no one is doing that.

    In fact, the only people hyping up the possibility of an attack on Iran are you and the STWC nutters.

  43. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:32 pm  

    Sorry Morgoth, rather Henry Kissinger’s endorsement than Lyndon B Johnson’s :-)

  44. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:33 pm  

    In fact, the only people hyping up the possibility of an attack on Iran are you and the STWC nutters.

    So are you opposed to a strike on Iran? You don’t think the American govt is gearing up for it? I believed they wouldn’t be that stupid… but they are that stupid.

    I figured as much, sunshine.

    So why are you accusing me of throwing juvenile insults?

  45. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:33 pm  

    I have three final questions for you, Kismet, since it is obvious we’ll never agree on this, and there is little point in continuing this.

    1. Under which circumstances exactly would you have supported the overthrow of Saddam in 2003?

    2. Are there any circumstances in which you would support the overthrow of a genocidal and fascist regime?

    3. How do you propose to prevent the Mullahs from getting nuclear weapons?

    Heck, this is to everyone else here as well.

  46. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:37 pm  

    Sorry Morgoth, rather Henry Kissinger’s endorsement than Lyndon B Johnson

    And that is what separates us. Henry Kissinger has a special place in the ninth circle of my personal hell for all the dictators he cosied up to.

    Sunny, fair enough. I apologise in this case.

  47. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:38 pm  

    1. A peaceful one that doesn’t kill thousands of his people. Musharraf is arguably a dictator. Would it be better for the Pakistani people to start a war with Pakistan to topple him?

    2. Yeah, when they want to take over the world in the name of lebensraum. Tin pot mullahs screaming Jihad from mosques ain’t the same thing

    3. Stop teaching the world nuclear weapons = power

    Where’s your faith in people power man?

  48. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:50 pm  

    1. A peaceful one that doesn’t kill thousands of his people.

    And if Saddam refused to step down, than what?

    Musharraf is arguably a dictator. Would it be better for the Pakistani people to start a war with Pakistan to topple him?

    Sanctions at the very least.

    2. Yeah, when they want to take over the world in the name of lebensraum. Tin pot mullahs screaming Jihad from mosques ain’t the same thing

    Your opinion on intervention in Rwanda in 1994, when the genocide was contained within international borders?

    3. Stop teaching the world nuclear weapons = power

    That’s not a practical step. How do you stop the Mullahs from achieving their own nuke in the next couple of years?

    Where’s your faith in people power man?

    It died on June 4, 1989, alas.

  49. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:55 pm  

    I’m going to leave it at this: the world is a shit place ruled by evil people. America sticking their noses in places where they can get something out of it and leaving a trail of destruction isn’t the answer. You’re a good man Morgoth. Don’t take Goliath’s word for it just because he says he tells you David’s trouble

    I bid you peace

    (and that dude in front of the tank made a difference. Never think he didn’t)

  50. Leon — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:55 pm  

    How anyone can see the appalling results of US intervention in Iraq and still thinks it’s wise to let them do it all over again?

    That’s the million dollar question.

  51. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 3:57 pm  

    why do you persist in going on about mad mullahs when there are plenty of other mad ppl about in India, Pakistan, Israel, oh yes and I forget about the last country that actually used a nuclear bomb

  52. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:06 pm  

    Leon, still, the majority of Iraqis, more so than any other nation on the planet, say that the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 was the right one.

  53. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:09 pm  

    omg that’s so funny..majority of iraqis..what did you carry out a poll?? wow

  54. Kismet Hardy — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:12 pm  

    Jonz, you can’t possibly know what the majority of Iraqis think. The majority of them are dead

  55. Leon — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:13 pm  

    Leon, still, the majority of Iraqis, more so than any other nation on the planet, say that the decision to remove Saddam in 2003 was the right one.

    The million or so dead as a result of that invasion may beg to disagree…

  56. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:21 pm  

    Glad you asked Sofia, a poll was conducted in 2005, one of the questions was “Do you think the decision to remove Saddam was correct?”. 74% of Iraqis said YES.

  57. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:23 pm  

    It would be funny, if it were not so tragic, how Western liberals presume the Iraqis would have preferred Saddam. Sofia’s response is very telling. She’s convinced that such a notion would be impossible.

  58. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:24 pm  

    ooh look..my response was telling..of what exactly?? you’re so goddamned presumptive…

  59. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:24 pm  

    Nothing personal Sofia at all, most on the left think the same way.

  60. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:25 pm  

    I meant the general consensus of reading negative, and pretty much negative only, reports form Iraq day to day. there’s been good news and developments but you would be very hard pressed to find it in the media and many blogs

  61. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:27 pm  
  62. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:27 pm  

    My point is we shouldn’t be so presumptive about what the Iraqis want. So many assume, as you did that the majority did not want it to happen.

  63. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:27 pm  

    good news?? oh what 100 dead a day instead of 200? yeh that’s good news

  64. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:28 pm  

    yeh jonz..it’s a pity nobody asked the iraqis opinions on selling fucking arms to saddam…

  65. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:29 pm  

    yes Sofia :) I like facts. The question was Do you think it was right to remove Saddam in 2003?

    You presumably opposed the decision to remove Saddam – which would have been against the majority of Iraqis will.

  66. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:34 pm  

    Jonz what i oppose is idiot leaders in the west supplying these dictators and then conveniently washing their hands of them in some pathetic attempt to cover their arses..

  67. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:36 pm  

    and furthermore…there are plenty of other dictatorships there where we again conveniently choose to turn a blind eye..if we’re going to intervene, let’s be consistent.

  68. Leon — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:37 pm  

    It would be funny, if it were not so tragic, how Western liberals presume the Iraqis would have preferred Saddam.

    I find it amusing that you’re views bear little or no relation to reality.

    If I had the time and could be bothered I’d go hunting for that poll that indicated most Iraqis preferred life under him and the other UN study which showed that life is now worse than under his rule. Quite a feat that, to make people want a brutal dictator back in power.

    And given all that there are still people lunatic enough to beg for war against Iran (and before any idiotic little rhetoric monkey starts my position is not dissimilar to Sunny’s when it comes to Iran) it amazes just how little they’ve learned from Iraq.

  69. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:40 pm  

    Jonz what i oppose is idiot leaders in the west supplying these dictators and then conveniently washing their hands of them in some pathetic attempt to cover their arses..

    Indeed. The former Leaders of France, Russia, Germany have much to answer for.

    Need I link to that study again that showed that Saddam was overwhelmingly supplied arms by Russia, France and Germany?

  70. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:42 pm  

    if we’re going to intervene, let’s be consistent.

    I agree fully. Let’s be consistent. If we have to have a “United Nations”, let’s make it a engine of liberty and democracy instead of a support-club for genocidal dictators who get a free pass if they spout enough anti-western rhetoric.

  71. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:44 pm  

    Jonz, you can’t possibly know what the majority of Iraqis think. The majority of them are dead

    The majority of Iraqis are dead? Really?

  72. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:49 pm  

    oh morgoth and you’ll see in one of the other threads the links I provided on who we’ve supplied arms to and that also includes Iraq..duh

  73. Sofia — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:51 pm  

    and I see when it comes down to it..us Brits are totally innocent in all this aren’t we..we never support dictators..or are we only focusing on one at the moment…looks like we’ve got a saudi dictator visiting us at the moment..hmm..do we supply arms to the saudis..hmmm…

  74. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 4:55 pm  

    oh morgoth and you’ll see in one of the other threads the links I provided on who we’ve supplied arms to and that also includes Iraq..duh,

    Oh indeed we did, and it was utterly shameful. But the UK and the US accounted for something like TWO PERCENT of total arms sales to Iraq. What about the other 98%?

    like we’ve got a saudi dictator visiting us at the moment..hmm..do we supply arms to the saudis..

    Oh I agree again with you completely again. “King” Abdullah should be kicked out on his arse and told never to darken these shores ever again – it is completely shameful the way we kowtow to those theocrats.

  75. soru — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:09 pm  

    Quite a feat that, to make people want a brutal dictator back in power.

    I think the more relevant way of phrasing that is that is is quite a feat to run your country so badly the citizens cheer, even briefly and without lasting enthusiasm, when a foriegn army turns up.

    Iran is certainly badly run, but it is nowhere near that ballpark.

    Secondly, if you look at Jonz/the Times point:
    - Reduces the risk to the West of a “dirty” bomb in big cities. Iran is a sponsor of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah

    Making a ‘dirty bomb’ requires nothing more than the contents of a reasonably modern hospital. Consequently, eliminating the ability to create a dirty bomb would require eliminating modern hospitals from Iran.

    A similar point applies to long range missiles and medium engineering factories, agressive propaganda and TV stations, financial support for hamas/hizbollah and people with money.

    Getting rid of all those from Iran is probably not beyond the capabilities of US aipower, but lets be clear about this – it would be an atrocity equivalent to a nuclear first strike.

  76. Leon — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:20 pm  

    let’s make it a engine of liberty and democracy instead of a support-club for genocidal dictators

    I agree, Bush has far too much say at the UN.:

  77. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:31 pm  

    A few questions j0nz / Morgoth:

    1) If public opinion matters so much to you guys, would you be happy to accept a poll in Iran that said people did not want their country to be attacked? WOuld you then be against a pre-emptive attack on Iran?

    2) If human rights is the main driver for your condemnation of regimes, then does it mean you will be advocating war against countries that do this on a larger scale? China for example, and its occupation of Tibet?

    3) Do you think diplomacy is useless? Do you not feel it worked in places like North Korea?

    4) If you’re pro-democracy in all places, what if I provide evidence of examples where the US govt removed democratically elected people for their own agendas. Do you think all US policy is driven by a pro-democracy agenda?

  78. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:32 pm  

    5) Sorry, one last one. Sofia points to a poll saying that most Iraqis want US troops out within a year. Now, do you think we should listen to all polls, or only when they suit us?

  79. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:40 pm  

    1) Iran is not a democracy.

    2) Yes. Sanctions at the very least against China, not least since 1989.

    3) No. Kim’II’Jong and his regime are still in power. That’s a failure.

    4) No one said it was perfect. But the US can be right, y’know, and overall *is* quite a force for good.

    5) If the Iraqis organise a plebiscite or their government calls for the troops to leave, I’ll support them leaving, indeed.

  80. soru — on 29th October, 2007 at 5:52 pm  

    Sofia, you might be interested in the full version of that poll you linked to a summary of:

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_quaire.pdf

    Look at question 10 in particular.

    Ignoring inconvenient, but easily checkable, facts is rarely an effective way to make a case for or against anything.

  81. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 6:01 pm  

    If I had the time and could be bothered I’d go hunting for that poll that indicated most Iraqis preferred life under him

    Evidence please? Otherwise I will assume this is a completely unfounded claim.

  82. j0nz — on 29th October, 2007 at 6:16 pm  

    1. Iran is not a democracy. Also we can assume an attack on Iran would be a tactical operation on the nuclear facilities, not for regime change. Would the Iranians want regime change, I wonder?

    2. Yes.

    3. Diplomacy first. But don’t wait year on year until it’s a moot point.

    4. I am not agent of US policy. Sometimes they are very wrong. The US is driven by policies that benefit the US. A globalistic democracy would do this.

    5. We should, as democracies be paying close attention to what the people want – however, we must take in to account that people can be very scared to speak out in oppresive regimes and societies.

    Sunny:

    DO you think North Korea and Libya ‘diplomacy’ would have worked without the threat of american aggression, the war on Iraq etc?

  83. Don — on 29th October, 2007 at 6:33 pm  

    I’m sure Morgoth is right, based on my own limited experience, that a very large number of Iranians are secular-minded, sophisticated and resentful of the oppressive theocracy they are stuck with.

    But if you hope that that will translate into support for an invasion of their country I suspect you’ll be disappointed. Haven’t taken a poll, but the prospect of foreign troops does tend to make all but the most disaffected rally round the flag. And that is before the people you hope will be your supporters have spent months surviving in a bloody shambles watching their families being butchered because they were in the way of the war machine.

    I can’t see that this US administration has learned anything from the Iraq debacle. Their motives, methods, competence and concept of forward planning simply do not inspire confidence. Even if you believe a case can be made for liberal intervention (and I believe it sometimes can, as in Sierra Leone and East Timor)it’s hard to see why you should imagine the current administration will produce anything other than another disaster.

    I am genuinely sure that both Morgoth and Jonz have ethical motives for seeking regime change in Iran. I am equally sure that the Bush administration does not share those motives. This is not an administration of talent or admirable achievement, not a president whose words can be trusted (or even understood) and not a military machine which can cope with the task of fixing what it has broken.

    In fact, this was prescient;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7ClrAXJRjk

    For an Iranian, I imagine it must feel like being assured that you need to have a malignant tumour removed, but that the only surgeon available is a drunk with a chainsaw.

  84. Chris Stiles — on 29th October, 2007 at 7:01 pm  

    We should, as democracies be paying close attention to what the people want – however, we must take in to account that people can be very scared to speak out in oppresive regimes and societies.

    The conditions under which both the polls referred to above were conducted were virtually the same – unless you want to debate the relative methodology of each. There are near identical reasons why they might feel forced answer affirmatively to either question – assuming any sort of coercion was involved.

    The latter poll also showed a reasonable majority in favour of attacks on US troops.

  85. Rumbold — on 29th October, 2007 at 7:22 pm  

    Kismet:

    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but weren’t you the one who flipped out over the Shilpa Shetty/Big Brother incident? Just wondering, because you seem to think that it is okay to make racist remarks about Americans (#22).

  86. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2007 at 8:13 pm  

    Don @ 83,

    I think that the whole cause of liberal interventionism has been set back years if not decades by the complete mess that was the conclusion of Gulf War One. My understanding of the final hours of that particular conflict was that Baghdad was in chaos and would have fallen if the, genuinely international, force had had the bottle to keep going. All the rest of the mess that we see now is down to that failure of will, IMHO.

    The history of American involvement in Iraq since that failure of will would, frankly, suggest that they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.

    My preferred option, in terms of removing nasty dictators, is for those that are against them – and that shouldn’t be the boards of directors of Haliburton and Blackwater – it should be the Morgoths and jOnz of this world – getting their hands dirty – in providing materiel and money to the internal resistance.

    Unfortunately, after having made idiots of themselves by letting Saddam Hussein stay in power after Gulf War One their blessed US of A then managed to mess up an internal revolt, by shouting for it from the bleachers and then walking away when push came to shove. It was around about then that any sensible person would have realised that the US plays it’s own brand of power politics, and it has sweet fanny adams to do with ‘liberal interventionism’.

    It is also true to say that the sanctions regieme was another total tragedy, where, what, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi babies and toddlers were used as punt money by the Baathists and the West. That, frankly is when we should all have wondered why dead kids can be used by both the pro and anti arguement. They are dead, ffs.

    What we seem to have given up on is any conception of the human catastrophe that all this global geopolitics causes. It is fine for Morgoth and jOnz to accuse us of sitting in a Western democracy. That is true. But they do too, and they are being incredibly flippant with other peoples lives.

    If either Morgoth or jOnz can be bothered, and I expect not, the foreign policy of the USA is a complete disaster from a humanitarian perspective. It is, frankly, a world totally divorced from what most American citizens I’ve discussed this with, think that their country is about.

    It is as if the countries’ foreign policy had been hijacked by aliens. Viz “well, we’re the most powerful country on the planet, and yet none of our electors cares much about what we do abroad. Well there’s an opportunity to make money!”

    This disconnect has been going on for a long, long time, and is unlikely to get better.

  87. Don — on 29th October, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

    Wouldn’t disagree, Douglas.

  88. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2007 at 8:34 pm  

    Don,

    Cheers. I thought I was writing that into a total vacuum.

    Glad someone doesn’t disagree :-)

  89. Rumbold — on 29th October, 2007 at 8:37 pm  

    Douglas:

    The US has made a mess of Gulf War Two, but as I understand it in Gulf War one they wanted to topple Saddam but some of the other countries refused.

    Incidentally, I am opposed to a US/UK strike on Iran because it would be unlikelt to topple the regime, it would strengthen the hardliners, provide an excuse for retaliation and would probably fail to even destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities (as they are spread out and underground). Having said that, if Israel attacked a power pledged to wipe them off the face of the earth I would have trouble condemning them.

  90. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2007 at 8:58 pm  

    Rumbold,

    Oh, so there is someone else reading? Cheers.

    Yes, I believe what you say about some countries refusing is true, what was wrong about that was that the French and the British, who were doing quite a lot of the heavy lifting, thought they had Saddam in their sights.

    So, compromising to Saudi or Syrian interests was ridiculous.

    Answer on a postcard.

    Next!

    Incidentally, I am opposed to a US/UK strike on Iran because it would be unlikelt to topple the regime, it would strengthen the hardliners, provide an excuse for retaliation and would probably fail to even destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities (as they are spread out and underground). Having said that, if Israel attacked a power pledged to wipe them off the face of the earth I would have trouble condemning them.

    I too am against releasing the lunatics from the asylum. They are clearly boys with the bomb. I am frit of everyone that has the bomb, including India and Pakistan. Not to mention Israel. We have geared ourselves up for mutually assured destruction, and that is , really, really, deadly.

  91. Rumbold — on 29th October, 2007 at 9:02 pm  

    Douglas:

    “So, compromising to Saudi or Syrian interests was ridiculous.”

    Agreed.

    “We have geared ourselves up for mutually assured destruction, and that is , really, really, deadly.”

    Yes and no; I suspect that destruction, if it arrives, is more likely to be in the shape of a terrorist bomb rather than an Iranian bomb, because terrorists can launch the bomb and then hide, whereas Iran is a stationary target.

  92. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2007 at 9:36 pm  

    Rumbold,

    I hope you are right. Frankly, the idea that we should sit here and wait for it, is like being back in those fifties kids movies, where the idea of, like hiding, underneath you desk would be a useful tactic.

    Rumbold, my frank position on this subject in that no-one should have the bomb. Honestly.

    Assuming you agree, how do we stop it?

    Remember. If we don’t solve this, chances are, you and I are both dead.

  93. Morgoth — on 29th October, 2007 at 10:10 pm  

    If either Morgoth or jOnz can be bothered, and I expect not, the foreign policy of the USA is a complete disaster from a humanitarian perspective.

    The alternative is a foreign policy driven by the Chinese or the Russians (formerly the Soviets). Are you sure you want that?

  94. Sunny — on 29th October, 2007 at 11:25 pm  

    The alternative is a foreign policy driven by the Chinese or the Russians

    The alternative is actually a more ethically driven foreign policy and then holding other countries to the same standards.

    This is rather like the ‘China is polluting the world’ argument. People want China to stop polluting when the United States is doing nothing to stop itself. People in glass houses…. etc.

    The reason why the East increasingly does not listen to the USA/UK is because there’s no morality in the decisions the latter make. So why shouldn’t Russia/China/India do what their interests dictate if others don’t?

  95. sonia — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:21 am  

    very funny. what a lot of stupid people there are in the world. gosh

    anyhow i dont know how many of you lovely people have had the pleasure and joy of growing up in the Middle East. You don’t really want to mess with Iran – they have a much longer history of Empire, and when threatened, yes they’ll get proud and nationalistic, like the rest of these silly humans, and look how many people died during the iran-iraq war, and look how tenacious both sides were in that fight. and fat lot of good that did to anyone ( well apart from folk who sold each side their weapons of course)

    yep, some people just won’t learn. the mullahs are the ones that will benefit from all this, and that much they know full well.

  96. sonia — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:23 am  

    the idea of ‘foreign’ policy is itself inherently unethical, if we are going to be really progressive let’s just admit that once and for all please. We might not be able to alter it, but if we want to be honest, let’s just say it like it is. its the idea of ‘foreign’ that is fucking weird, having a policy of how you treat “aliens” is really going to get ‘ethical’ isn’t it/

  97. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:34 am  

    the mullahs are the ones that will benefit from all this, and that much they know full well.

    So the alternative is just to sit back and watch as the mullahs develop nukes and proceed to institute a new holocaust, as they said repeatedly they would?

    The mullahs cannot survive a full out attack by the US. ‘Shock and Awe’ and the consequent total destruction of the Iraqi Army within 3 weeks was merely a light dusting compared to what the US Air Force/Navy *could* do. And an attack on Iran is the 2nd worst option, *after* the mullah’s getting nukes. Don’t pin your hopes on Hilary either – she could be even more hawkish than GWB ever could be.

    So I guess the pertinent question is this: do you want the mullahs to get nukes?

  98. douglas clark — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:19 am  

    Morgoth,

    Pakistan already has nukes, and is by no manner of means a stable regieme. Still, Musharaf is a founder member of the neocon project, so that’s all right, is it?

    No, it isn’t. If you are looking for instability in the nuclear area, look no further than Pakistan. Correct me if I am wrong, but did not one of their greatest nuclear physicists think it was quite OK to spread the weapon amongst similarily aligned states?

    And, for a MAD proponent, you have as little real faith in that philosophy as I do. If MAD works, then even the most evil regiemes on the planet should have the resource. Then, within their borders, they can do what they fucking well please. Which, I hope, neither you nor I would see as an acceptable solution to despotic governance.

    It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to tie Iran into it’s commitments to the nuclear NPT, without having the lunatics in Washington sabre rattling.

    You do realise that the folk in Washington are completely insane? It would help, if in any future discussion, you jumped off that particular fence.

    So the question, frankly, is this: do you believe in the Rapture or not? Personally, I have my doubts.

    Makes me worry about who’s leading the Western World though, and who his idiotic supporters are.

  99. douglas clark — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:26 am  

    Sonia @ 96,

    You always say it better than I can!

  100. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 9:47 am  

    Douglas:

    “I hope you are right. Frankly, the idea that we should sit here and wait for it, is like being back in those fifties kids movies, where the idea of, like hiding, underneath you desk would be a useful tactic.

    Rumbold, my frank position on this subject in that no-one should have the bomb. Honestly.

    Assuming you agree, how do we stop it?

    Remember. If we don’t solve this, chances are, you and I are both dead.”

    I do not agree that the Western world should give up nukes in order to set an example to others. It sounds nice in theory, but in reality coutries like Pakistan and Israel would hang onto their nukes, while North Korea, Syria and Iran develop theirs. Then where would we be? MAD always sounds at first like a grim doctrine, but arguably it kept hawks in various countries from launching nukes when they were angry at another country; India and Pakistan have been to war (Kargil) since they both became nuclear powers, yet neither fired nukes, and that must partly be to do with the fact that they both had them.

    If all nukes could be jettisoned forever, then UK/US disarmament would be acceptable. Otherwise, we have to hold onto them.

  101. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 10:16 am  

    Fundamentally, we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. But there is a gfundamental difference between the likes of the US/Israel/France/India and even the Russians having them, and letting the Mullahs have them.

  102. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:04 am  

    Rumbold re: 85

    I didn’t flip out over Shilpa Shetty furore because it was anti-Indian. I pledged my support to her for two very good reasons:

    I didn’t want to see the casual return of ignorant bullying on British television

    And more importantly, I felt if I showed my devotion to helping her survive her horrific ordeal that has clearly left her scarred, that she might sleep with me

    Besides, it’s okay to call Americans stupid because they think it’s okay to commit mass murder in the name of saving people

  103. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:10 am  

    Besides, it’s okay to call Americans stupid because they think it’s okay to commit mass murder in the name of saving people

    Now we see the “acceptable” face of racism, eh?

    BTW, I’m still waiting for confirmation of your claim that the “majority” of Iraqis are now dead. You’ve hardly covered yourself in glory on this thread, eh?

  104. sahil — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:15 am  

    Americans are a race now morgoth, I thought it was you who kept arguing that its ok to insult muzzies because they’re not a race innit!!

  105. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:22 am  

    it’s okay to call Americans stupid because they think it’s okay to commit mass murder in the name of saving people

    Kismet you complete hypocrite. You oppose racism and stereotyping only for certain groups.

    What about someone says it’ss ok to call the Palestinians nazis – because they voted in Hamas who want to destroy the jews?

  106. sahil — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:24 am  

    “What about someone says it’ss ok to call the Palestinians nazis – because they voted in Hamas who want to destroy the jews?”

    A lot of people do. Your point??

  107. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:26 am  

    Americans are a race now morgoth, I thought it was you who kept arguing that its ok to insult muzzies because they’re not a race innit!!

    Oh, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy in Kismet’s statement. Hence my use of sarcastic double quotes.

  108. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:28 am  

    Morgoth, the majority comment was bad grammar on my part. But it’s interesting to see you can dismiss a million lives as a matter of improper syntax…

    Although I can’t see how you’ve riddled my statement about American stupidity with holes. If they endorse the killing of thousands of innocent lives to protect themselves from an unseen bunch of fanatic twats who may or may not blow something up in their country again, they’re stupid. On the other hand, if it’s true that 70% of Americans oppose the war, they’re stupid for voting in a warmonger to carry on starting wars

  109. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:30 am  

    Jonz, if you think this is the bit where I say ‘ooh but the Hamas are a valid democratically voted party’, you’re wrong

    George Bush was voted in democratically and I think he’s a cunt too

  110. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:34 am  

    I see Kismet so americans are stupid, the lot of them. Very telling.

  111. sahil — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:37 am  

    “I see Kismet so americans are stupid, the lot of them. Very telling.”

    The red states certainly are. If you guys love your stereotypes I’ll join in :D

  112. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:39 am  

    You shock me Jonz. So you take one link about a dumb baseball player, one overview about American voters’ stupidity and voila, you’ve got me down as fanatically anti-American. I’m surprised a right wing bigot doesn’t need more information to form a rounded opinion of a human being. Really

  113. sahil — on 30th October, 2007 at 11:59 am  

    “hypocrisy in Kismet’s statement”

    Oh my Morgoth, you’re getting a bit serious aren’t you?? I always figured you as a clown.

  114. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:05 pm  

    “You’ve hardly covered yourself in glory on this thread, eh?”

    Yeah Morgoth. What an evil, deplorable git I’ve been saying people shouldn’t get unnecessarily killed on the whim of money hungry men in superman tights

    I wish I could be you

  115. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:18 pm  

    Kismet:

    Regarding the American football player comment, if you had just said “look at this guy- what an idiot” that would be fine. What you said was “Random Americans are stupid link”, which is stereotyping a whole country based on the odd example. Now I generally don’t particularly care about such comments, whoever they are uttered at, but I remember you having a hissy fit about Shilpa Shetty being abused. I still don’t see the difference between that and your comment, unless you think that people who go on reality TV shows should be held to a higher standard than you.

    On your calculation, I assume then that the following phrases are acceptable (not that I agree with any of them):

    - All Bangladeshis are stupid because they don’t move away from flooded areas.

    - All Africans are stupid because look at the state of their continent.

    - All Indians are murderers because a few of them are.

    What is the difference between the disgraceful above comments and what you said?

    “And more importantly, I felt if I showed my devotion to helping her survive her horrific ordeal that has clearly left her scarred, that she might sleep with me.”

    Even though I am annoyed, I laughed at that.

  116. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:18 pm  

    Relax Kismet. I was winding you up truth be told! I know you’re not an anti-american, though it does annoy me when people get angry at stereotyping people, then go ahead and do it themselves, even if they are half joking.

  117. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:22 pm  

    What an evil, deplorable git I’ve been saying people shouldn’t get unnecessarily killed on the whim of money hungry men in superman tights

    Overthrowing Saddam was “unnecessary” was it?

    Again its with the “The Iraqs can go hang since I’m alright sitting cushy in my nice safe Western Democracy” attitude. Its a Spoilt selfish brat attitude that Orwell condemned so utterly.

  118. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:27 pm  

    Rumbold, my Shilpa hissy fit (I’ll never live it down and the ungrateful wench didn’t sleep with either) was about my fear of ther Jim Davidson/ Bernard Manning brigade returning to our television and can’t possibly be a parallel to condemnation of American voters for their sheer stupidity of believing the bile about the war on terror

    The football player was for illustration purposes only and not an exact representation. The dude was black and we all know black people don’t vote in America :-)

    As for your examples, you inserted the word “All”. I didn’t. Most of my favourite actors, authors and musicians are Americans. This is a political website. Resorting to generalisation is precisely what fires any political engine…

    It’s okay Jonz. My feelings got hurt cos I want you to like me

  119. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:28 pm  

    Morgoth. One word.

    Abdullah.

    Overthrow him and come back with your Saddam spiel.

  120. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:30 pm  

    Oh and Morgoth, overthrowing Saddam wasn’t the unnecessary part. The needless deaths of a million people was

  121. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:33 pm  

    Kismet:

    “Rumbold, my Shilpa hissy fit (I’ll never live it down and the ungrateful wench didn’t sleep with either) was about my fear of ther Jim Davidson/ Bernard Manning brigade returning to our television and can’t possibly be a parallel to condemnation of American voters for their sheer stupidity of believing the bile about the war on terror.”

    Heh- would you really want to sleep with Shilpa Shetty? There are plenty of more attractive Bollywood actresses you could stand up for. Sorry for overreacting, but can you see why I did? I just get annoyed sometimes.

    “The football player was for illustration purposes only and not an exact representation. The dude was black and we all know black people don’t vote in America.”

    It was a pretty funny story.

  122. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:36 pm  

    Kismet:

    How would you have handled Iraq then (pre-invasion)? At the time (without any hindsight), what would have been your solution?

  123. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:38 pm  

    A million now is it? Why not two million as other anti-war types are now claiming. Why not ten million, as you claimed above?

    The *vast* majority of deaths in Iraqi (Iraq Bodycount gives 150,000-odd, which is a more accurate figure than the ludicruous bullshit put out by ranting STWC types who happen to edit journals) were caused by terrorist and sectarian violence. D-Day also involved a large amount of deaths. So did the battle for Okinawa. What is your point?

    Just how were you going to overthrow Saddam then Kismet, without an invasion?

    Oh, that’s right. You weren’t. You were happy to sit back in your comfortable western democracy and condemn the Iraqis to another 50 years of first Saddam and then his equally psychotic and genocidal sons just because you are a spoilt selfish git with a “I’m alright Jack” attitude permeating your every pore.

    As Sunny would say, you don’t really give a shit about brown people, do you?

  124. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:54 pm  

    Morgoth, does it really matter if it was a million or half a million or even 52 like the number that tragically, unfairly perished in Tavistock Square? All human life is important and these people would be alive if we didn’t start a war with them

    Are you telling me Saddam was going to kill all those people anyway?

    I find the “if you oppose the war you don’t care for those living under tyranny” argument you pro-lifers throw as beyond tedious

    Do I endorse the beating of women and stoning of gays? Hell, no

    But do I think your answer of bombing the fuck out of them is a solution? Fifth plane of Hell, no

    If, however, you ask me to compare the evil of US invasion that caused so many deaths with the evil that caused people to live in fear, I’m with the one that lets people live

    If your way had worked, I’d share my crack pipe with you and cheer

    But it didn’t

    The people you tried to save died

    Because of you

    How can you be so arrogant and blinkered as to think you endorsed a good thing?!

  125. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:56 pm  

    Rumbold,

    I don’t have a solution to how Saddam could have been toppled (other than sending a Rambo/James Bond figure to just shoot the fucker)

    But I do know that we live in a world where far more evil tyrants are allowed to go about their way and we’re supposed to focus all our hatred on just the ones the US government don’t like

  126. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 12:57 pm  

    Pro-lifers?!

    I meant pro-war

    D’oh

  127. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:21 pm  

    Kismet:

    The US and allies are not the ones killing Iraqis; it is the Shia death militias and Sunnis terrorists. You can argue that the US and UK invasion spurred them on, but to blame the UK and US for these people is to excuse their actions. The muderers in Iraq have brains- they know what they are doing. Saying it is the fault of the West seems to me to discount the actual murderers.

  128. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:24 pm  

    No, USA has killed enough Iraqis to last them a lifetime, that’s for sure

    Time to hand over the mantle

    “it is the Shia death militias and Sunnis terrorists.”

    Funny how they weren’t free to kill each other with so much gusto when Saddam was in charge though, eh?

  129. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:28 pm  

    Kismet:

    The vast majority of violent deaths in Iraq have not been ones cause by coalition forces.

    “Funny how they weren’t free to kill each other with so much gusto when Saddam was in charge though, eh?”

    So you do think that they, and not the US, are the guiltest party then?

  130. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:32 pm  

    I think the USA are the guilty party for allowing this to happen, yes

  131. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:36 pm  

    Kismet:

    “I think the USA are the guilty party for allowing this to happen, yes.”

    I agree with you that the post-war management of Iraq has been nothing sort of a disgrace. However, I do think that too many people put the blame solely on the US, when it is actually the terrorists/death squads who are doing the killings. How many left-wingers have you seen/read who focus on the terrorists, rather than the US, as the chief reason for the Iraq situation?

  132. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:49 pm  

    Rumbold, your asking me to take sides. I think the US government and terrorists are equally evil

    It’s a bit like saying: ‘The man beat his wife to death because she chopped off their eldest son’s knob. Don’t you think she’d still be alive if she hadn’t done that?’

  133. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:56 pm  

    Kismet:

    “Rumbold, your asking me to take sides. I think the US government and terrorists are equally evil.”

    No I am not asking you to take sides. I am not trying to excuse US faults, but I cannot understand why what the US did is as bad as going out of your way to murder women and children every day, then celebrating it.

  134. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:56 pm  

    I think the US government and terrorists are equally evil

    Aha. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Been reading Chumpsky again?

  135. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 1:57 pm  

    Apropos to my clumsy analogy above

    They started it

  136. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:02 pm  

    ‘They’?

  137. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:02 pm  

    They started it

    Who started it?

  138. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:03 pm  

    Yes, Morgoth. Chomsky told me to say this. He came to me in my dream and brought ayatollah khomeni with him

    You know what make me laugh a bitter laugh?

    Here you are, preaching about the human rights of the opressed brown man and conveniently ignoring the fact that those very people have been getting buggered left right and centre precisely because you cried hallelujah when we started bombing them to kingdom come

    Oh the irony

    It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife

  139. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:04 pm  

    They. You’ve seen horror movies. The scary men that come to you at night to kill you and unleash all kinds of hellish demons. or the US army, if you will

  140. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:05 pm  

    (the hellish demons being the terrorists that Saddam kept under a leash)

  141. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

    being the terrorists that Saddam kept under a leash)

    a.k.a. The Baath Party.

  142. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

    Whne he made the trains run on time, and everywhere was peaceful and everyone was happy (according to Michale Moore, who will no doubt win an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize soon enough, a la Al Gore).

  143. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

    Morgoth, the baath party didn’t kill as many people as the warring factions in Iraq have been killing now are they?

  144. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:13 pm  

    Kismet, go look up the word “Anfal” or “Hama”. That’s the sort of people you’re defending.

  145. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:17 pm  

    Kismet:

    “Morgoth, the baath party didn’t kill as many people as the warring factions in Iraq have been killing now are they?”

    You seem to be grasping the situation now Kismet. It is not the US who are murdering tens of thousands, it is the warring factions. Well done.

  146. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:24 pm  

    Why do ‘western liberals’ such as Kismet insist that the US army is ‘bombing iraq to kingdom come’? Do they actually believe the stuff they write? Are they blind to who’s bombing whom?

  147. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:25 pm  

    I didn’t say they were still bombing them to kingdom come, you pedant peasant!

    But they did, didn’t they?

  148. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:28 pm  

    Morgoth and Rumbold, for the last flipping time. I’m not defending the anfal or the hama or muffin the fucking mule

    I’m condemning the USA for firstly killing innocent people with their torrent of bombs, then unleashing all kinds of hell upon them

    Don’t think I have a ‘support the war or support terrorism’ sticker on my bumper

  149. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:30 pm  

    Fact: these warring factions were always there. Saddam, evil bastard as he was, stopped them from running amok. USA helped their cause

    Now be happy with your stories about smiling all-women afghani football team and don’t acknowledge that those women are going to get beaten and raped and opressed by men anyway

  150. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:36 pm  

    Kismet:

    “Fact: these warring factions were always there. Saddam, evil bastard as he was, stopped them from running amok.”

    Fact: you are wrong. The car bomb planters are a mix of Iraqi Sunnis (who were in power with Saddam), and foreign terrorists.

  151. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:38 pm  

    I’m condemning the USA for firstly killing innocent people with their torrent of bombs, then unleashing all kinds of hell upon them

    As Rumbold has pointed out, the vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq are due to ex-Baathists/Al-Queda or various Iraqi militias. The numbers of innocent people killed by Allied forces is minimal.

    But not in Kismet-world, where it appears the US is the unique evil in the world, and it is the US that must be condemned above all and the actions of everyone else must be minimised and explained away. If you replace “the US” with “the Jews” your postings are no different from the looniest Hezbollah or White-Power nutter, frankly. Take a long hard look at yourself Kismet, and think why you’re getting into bed with the same totalitarian regimes who deflect any criticism with statements along the line of “but look at the US!”

  152. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    Kismet, admirable attempts to keep the discussion at a certain level throughout this thread. Well Done. Unfortunately, ppl like Rumbold, j0nz, Morgoth will constantly delude themselves into believing they are benovolent in their desire to murder hundreds of thousands more innocents (as long as they are brown, muslim and arab) and nothing you or I, or anyone else can say will change their minds. What I wouldn’t give to ship them off to Iraq so they can tell the Iraqi people how much of a favour has been given to them….

  153. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

    In fact, if the terrorism was to end tomorrow, US troops would be out of Iraq faster than you can say “President Hilary”.

  154. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:42 pm  

    Random Guy:

    “What I wouldn’t give to ship them off to Iraq so they can tell the Iraqi people how much of a favour has been given to them….2

    Only if you come along to tell the relatives of those Saddam murdered how good a ruler he was. Or is that a stupid argument?

  155. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

    Oh and Rumbold, how funny that there were no mass car bombings when Saddam was in power. So is this your better alternative? See, that is where naive idealism gets crushed by hard fact: + = THE IRAQ THAT YOU HAVE NOW.

  156. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

    What I wouldn’t give to ship them off to Iraq so they can tell the Iraqi people how much of a favour has been given to them….

    The sheer afrontery of someone who was more than happy for Saddam to say in power to even dare talk about the Iraqi people is utterly astounding. You and Kismet would have left the Iraqi people to suffer another 30 years of Baathist tyranny. Another 30 years of Anfals. Another 30 years of one of the most repressive and horrible regimes the modern world has ever seen. How dare you even talk about the Iraqi people. You and Kismet were willing Saddamite stooges and you’re proud of this fact. You both are utter moral bankrupts.

  157. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:46 pm  

    Oh and Rumbold, how funny that there were no mass car bombings when Saddam was in power.

    Feel free to read up on what happened to the families of anyone Saddam disapproved of. Or do they not count in your fantasy kite-flying paradise of Saddamite Iraq?

  158. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:49 pm  

    Random Guy:

    “Oh and Rumbold, how funny that there were no mass car bombings when Saddam was in power. So is this your better alternative? See, that is where naive idealism gets crushed by hard fact + = THE IRAQ THAT YOU HAVE NOW..”

    So Saddam overthrown by America + terrorists murder and maim = America’s fault. Wow.

  159. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:49 pm  

    @Rumbold, #154:

    Hmmm, Rumbold, I don’t remember endorsing Saddam being placed into power. Maybe you want to read some history books and examine the politics that placed these people in their positions of authority in the first place? Or do you intend to lay history’s burdens on my doorstep and somehow make it look like I actually have something to do with his being in power in the first place?

  160. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:51 pm  

    @Morgoth, #156: Woah, holy s**t. You actually are that deluded. Never mind Rumbold (nice attempt at your wierd maths equation btw), I think I already have the answer to my question. The mind boggles…

  161. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:52 pm  

    Random Guy:

    You accused me of supporting the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. I did the same thing to you (i.e. anti-war=pro-Saddam), in order to show you how illogical your point was. As it happens, there were plently of anti-war people who were not fond of Saddam, but just didn’t agree with the war. By the same token there were plently of pro-war people who did not want to see a lot of Iraqis die.

  162. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:54 pm  

    Or do you intend to lay history’s burdens on my doorstep and somehow make it look like I actually have something to do with his being in power in the first place?

    Ah, I smell the Mossedagh defense coming up, which basically goes like this:

    “Its America’s fault for everything. Always.”

    And you want to know something, Kismet/Random Guy. Confronted with a Baathist or Al-Queda type that you’re so willing to inflict upon other people, you’d both run screaming and begging to the nearest Para or US Marine to protect you. If you’re that happy for Iraqis to remain in a Baathist tyranny, which don’t you both move to Syria, where you can live in a Baathist-kite-flying paradise to your heart’s content.

  163. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:56 pm  

    Random Guy calls me deluded?

    I guess I am, in the parlence of the modern left, where it appears to be de rigeur to apologise for the worst genocidal dictators as long as they are sufficiently anti-Western. What next, open apologia for Kim’II’Jung?

  164. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:57 pm  

    So if I say something about the Iraqi ppl its ‘affrontery’, but when you do its ‘noble’? So you have a monopoly on what is best for the Iraqi people? Foot. Shotgun. Pow.

  165. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2007 at 2:59 pm  

    Random Guy:

    Which one of us are you talking to?

  166. Refresh — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:02 pm  

    History for the pro-war crowd is like washing powder – leaves them dazzling white and smelling of roses.

    Can we move this debate on – please?

    What is everyone doing to stop the attack on Iran?

    Anybody got decent slogans worked out for their banners and placards?

    Anyone written to their MPs?

  167. Refresh — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:03 pm  

    I am afraid, Random Guy is being generous when he says you are deluded.

  168. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:03 pm  

    Random guy, I presume you opposed the otherthrow of Saddam in 2003. This is in contradiction to the will of the Iraqi people, 74% of whom thought that was the correct decision.

    Random guy, try presenting facts rather than ad-hominen attacks.

    You don’t appear to care about the Iraqi people in the slightest. All you care about is point scoring. Pathetic.

  169. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:04 pm  

    So you have a monopoly on what is best for the Iraqi people? Foot. Shotgun. Pow.

    No, the Iraqi people have, through their democratically and internationally recognised government.

    You on the other hand, were content to let Saddam and his cronies decide what is best for Iraqis.

  170. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

    Anyone else find it interesting that the Iraqis were the most supportive of the decision to remove Saddam in 2003, and the least supportive the ‘western liberals’?

  171. Morgoth — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:08 pm  

    Well, as Nick Cohen has pointed out, these “Western Liberals” are no such thing. Both Locke and Orwell would be turning in their graves at the people nowadays claiming their mantles.

  172. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

    Hahahahah, you are funny you two. Its almost like watching a comedy duo without the comedy. Also, I must say, I am impressed by the rates of your answers. Bravo.

    Simply put my 2 friends, I am not arrogant enough to support policies that kill millions of innocents and ruin entire nations, nor stupid enough to think that bombs and death are good for an entire population. Leaving aside the questions of shame, responsibility and sorrow that you simply MUST be feeling after what has happened – and are you feeling anything I wonder? (not likely) – I think I have illustrated the difference in our attitudes adequately enough to move on.

    You both know this was about oil. You both know that Iran is about oil and gas. You are after all, not that stupid. Yet your yoyo-like tendency to make this about Saddam and all your other grand thoughts is either calculated, or hopelessly more ‘Kite-In-The-Sky’ than anything Morgoth can ever visualise. I stand by my previous point. Also, inane attempts to make it look like I somehow placed Saddam into power (probably by travelling back in time about 15 years from now) – or supported his actions – only serve to devalue your arguments further.

    We should all get in a car and go over to ask the Iraqi people what they think. Just so we can clarify once and for all that you are indeed the fine, generous figures that your comments clearly make you out to be.

  173. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:14 pm  

    Come on, back to the original debate! Let’s help Refresh and the anti-western or I mean anti-war crowd come up with some nonsensical strawman slogans!

    No skulls for grains of sand!
    No boiling babies for bush hitlers!
    Death to Israel!
    Death to America!

  174. Sunny — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:18 pm  

    You don’t appear to care about the Iraqi people in the slightest.

    j0nz – Funny you say that when he’s talking about the tons of Iraqis that have died since the invasion. A rather bizarre assertion to make.

    You’re quite good with straw-men yourself.

  175. j0nz — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:18 pm  

    I am not arrogant enough to support policies that kill millions of innocents and ruin entire nations

    Except, of course, unless those policies are implemented by Middle Eastern governments. Or in the name of Marxism, no doubt.

  176. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2007 at 3:21 pm  

    Refresh, sorry about this, but this damn thread is out of control and I am stuck here with Morgoth, j0nz and Rumbold without anyone in the driver’s seat :(

    @Jonz #168: By the way, note how our trio have moved on to the “Will of the Iraqi” ppl argument. I wonder if the ‘survey’ result you quoted (pls. don’t get me started) was conducted before or after all the bombing and infrastructure decimation, j0nZ. Anyway, I don’t appreciate you telling me what I do or don’t feel about the Iraqi people. You have no fucking idea. Really, you don’t.

    @Morgoth, #169: Oh do shut up. You are so unimaginably wrong.

    @Rumbold, #165: The deluded comment was aimed at Morgoth. If you share his opinion on that matter then you are welcome to share the dubious honour.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.