The war was about OIL and nothing else. Why you have to keeping banging on about it endlessly is really beyond me.
Also, Tony Blair never ask me, you or any member of british society if we wanted to go too war. His decision was made for him by George Bush. Although Blair spin doctors recently said in a documentary on his departure from office, that Bush insisted to Tony that he didn't have to join in the war as he understood how hostile brits were too it. But Blair insisted he was in and stood shoulder too shoulders with George on the mission. I personally do not believe this work of fiction as Blair strings were being pulled by GB and his neo-con religeous nutjobs on the war in lraq.
To be honest, it well now accepted that a majority of us didn't want war in lraq nor do we believe we can make Afghanistan a civilise country again by our present there, as our troops are dying in vain in Kabul and Helman province.
The sooner Gordon Brown pull out our troops from both countries and used the resources to tackle the terrorists at home, the better.
I voted "other" Oil is too simple. You can use dollars anywhere in the world. Many countries keep their national reserves in Dollars. The Dollars are valuable because you can exchange them for oil. OPEC only allow oil to be bought with Dollars. In 2001 Sadaam changed the oil exchange currency for Iraqi oil from Dollars to Euros. Thats why he had to be taken out and a clear message sent to all others who might do the same. Iran is planning the same thing right now. Google "the proposed Iranian oil bourse"
Thats very interesting Taranis, thanks for that, its not something I was aware of before. Do you have any info on Sadaams change?
I had always thought it was to do with prices but in a slightly different way, because with instability in the middle east, oil becomes more expensive, and as its bought in dollars, this boosts the value of the dollar and bumps up also the price of oil from the US oil fields - double whammy!!
Thank you. Namaste. Good Luck.
** BLACK HORSES TRUE AND ONLY FORUM WIFE!!**
(I hate JATE and SATE threads and those stupid mills and boons wannabe stories)
Originally posted by krymsk babe: Thats very interesting Taranis, thanks for that, its not something I was aware of before. Do you have any info on Sadaams change?
Here :
Apparently the exchange currency for Iraqi oil was put back to Dollars two months after Iraq was invaded.
I put 'other' because I don't believe it was just about oil anymore, I believe that it was a genuine fear/concern over an imminent attack, albeit a distorted misguided fear.
What gave rise to that fear? When did Iraq directly threaten us? or even the US. Truth be known, the hadnt the capability to do anything of any import. They knew the WMD's didnt exist based on the UN inspectors reports (the ones the took from the inspectors on arriving back in the US and scrutinised before giving back to the UN, tell me would we have stood for Putin ordering anything like this?) Anyway. Those documents led the UN to feel that any declaration of war would be unjustifiable given the evidence THEY as impartial inspectors found. Our own lawyers advised our government agianst war on the grounds that it couldnt be legally legitimised yet we went. There was no threat, imminent or otherwise and noone has proved that there was other wise the UN would have backed us up
Thank you. Namaste. Good Luck.
** BLACK HORSES TRUE AND ONLY FORUM WIFE!!**
(I hate JATE and SATE threads and those stupid mills and boons wannabe stories)
The US government were quite brazen about REGIME CHANGE to preserve American strategic control over the region and the energy resources.
Meanwhile, in Britain, we were undergoing one of our periods of self-dillusion and self-deception by dressing-up what was, in effect, 'a war of choice' as an exercise to remove NON-EXISTENT WMD.
With Tony Blair as the the salesman, our political establishment fell for the invasion in the sure knowledge that we had overwhelming military superiority and this was (to use the Americanism) a 'cake walk'.
After the invasion, there were no WMD, therefore, Prime Minister Blair had to change tack and justify everything on removing the murdering regime of Saddam Hussein . . .
Unfortunately, the maelstrom of chaos and bloodshed unleashed by the invasion has caused more death and destruction than Saddam Hussein could (ever) imagine in his wet dreams. The report by the Lancet and Johns Hopkins into Iraqi casualties has put the conflict back into it's proper context . . . a war crime . . .
Not a million Hutton Inquiries and Butler Reports can write the historical prologue on the invasion of 2003 - the epilogue, will, as a matter of necessity, be written in the Near East . . . the consequences for Britain are grave.
We didnt invade we landed in DDay. If the populace welcome you it cant be an invasion. We was welcomed into Iraq as liberators before all of the propaganda swayed the people into thinking about what power they can get for themselves.
Originally posted by Toolz: We didnt invade iraq we liberated it. I dont think WMDs was the only reason either but just one of the main prioritys.
Is that so? So you see the faisco as being some kind of humanitarian, marcy mission? Oh my poor deluded child, where on earth would you get such an idea from?
IF you were correct in assuming this, why didnt the United Nations support this "liberation". Or were they on the side of the evil dictator? Were they bribed, or didnt they care enough?
Also, if this is as you say, a "liberation" why havent we done the same in other countries which need to be liberated?
I think you may be very aptly named, and your signature too, very apt
Thank you. Namaste. Good Luck.
** BLACK HORSES TRUE AND ONLY FORUM WIFE!!**
(I hate JATE and SATE threads and those stupid mills and boons wannabe stories)
Originally posted by Toolz: We didnt invade we landed in DDay. If the populace welcome you it cant be an invasion. We was welcomed into Iraq as liberators before all of the propaganda swayed the people into thinking about what power they can get for themselves.
Nice one, very amusing, yes. I tke it you are having us on with this, I mean, no real live person can REALLY think/believe this.... can they? Are these welcoming arms, the same ones who have been blowing up our soldiers since they arrived?
Thank you. Namaste. Good Luck.
** BLACK HORSES TRUE AND ONLY FORUM WIFE!!**
(I hate JATE and SATE threads and those stupid mills and boons wannabe stories)
Originally posted by krymsk babe: Nice one, very amusing, yes. I tke it you are having us on with this, I mean, no real live person can REALLY think/believe this.... can they? Are these welcoming arms, the same ones who have been blowing up our soldiers since they arrived?
In general the Iraqi population did welcome the overthrow of Saddam - maybe not quite welcoming arms but hardly antagonistic either. However, the problem was that we never had an exit strategy in place before invading the country (and yes it was an invasion).
This lack of an pre-existant and effective exit strategy has led to the hodge-podge decisions since - most often reactive rather than proactive. Let's not get things out of proportion, yes there are those who blow up our troops but numerically they cannot be said to be representative of the entire populace. PIRA, INLA, etc. killed quite a few people but that does not mean that the majority of Northern Irish people agreed with their methods (even if they supported the cause).
Of course the longer our troops remain then the more fuel we give to those factions both in country and neighbouring who are manipulating the populace for their own ends. The dilemmna now is that to just pull out would likely be worse than remaining. Remember that there are far more Iraqis killed day-to-day by the Militant than allied troops. Our troop presence undoubtedly reduces this inter-faction killing.
On allied troop deaths: The US probably suffers worse here than we in the UK (and I don't mean numerically). Historically the US public has been less tolerant of body counts than European nations. They tend to like fast, clean, wars and don't like to face the truth that it is nasty and does involve the death of their own.
Unfortunately American foreign policy has always been pretty short sighted and, despite their claims to the contrary, often of the gunboat variety. (Though they seldom admit to such).
