NATO a mercainery force

[Dubai Blue]

are the people in Iraq & Afganistan any better of after "our help"?

Erm, yes.

I'm no fanboy of either conflict but there is absolutely no doubt that both places are better off now. If you don't believe that, I can only imagine you've never spoken to people from either country and heard their stories of what life was like under the previous regimes.

Actually the case that a large number of the relatives of lockerbie victims simply don't believe that the plane was brought down by the libyans. Check it out for yourself but try an internet search rather than reading the sun . . you'll be surprised to learn that the 'popular' view put by the red tops can be little more than cheap propaganda of the kind that helped keep blair in power when we murdered 180,000 men, women and children in the very first night of the missile attacks on iraq. . attacks in reprisal for less than 6,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks that were carried out by saudi's -15 of the 18 involved were from saudi arabia. The relatives of the innocents murdered in that illegal western attack (dropping more weapon power in one night than was dropped on civilian areas in europe in the whole of the 2nd world war) know exactly who was to blame . . us.

Oh, and when you're on about state terrorism - think a little about the way that the usa sponsored the ira . . to the degree that even McDonalds were putting funding terrorism directly and with the blessings of the white house.

Moreover . . just try to think and when you've mastered that art then feel free to give an opinion - and people might just take you seriously.

Absolute horseshit from start to finish.

 

[BulgarianPride]

let me get this straight.... its better to invade libya then run the risk of not having petrol to fight future rioters....what a load of babyfat!!!!!

You do realize how important oil is to our society and its not just for filling up our cars ?

Don't you think investing the money into finding alternatives is much better than to spent it killing people for oil?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

let me get this straight.... its better to invade libya then run the risk of not having petrol to fight future rioters....what a load of babyfat!!!!!

You do realize how important oil is to our society and its not just for filling up our cars ?

Don't you think investing the money into finding alternatives is much better than to spent it killing people for oil?

The only people that invest enough money in the alternatives are the oil companies. And oil makes many products that alternative fuels cannot. Trust me a hydrogen cell is not going to produce plastics

 

[BulgarianPride]

You do realize how important oil is to our society and its not just for filling up our cars ?

Don't you think investing the money into finding alternatives is much better than to spent it killing people for oil?

The only people that invest enough money in the alternatives are the oil companies. And oil makes many products that alternative fuels cannot. Trust me a hydrogen cell is not going to produce plastics

Of course it won't. Oil is used in many products however there is always a benefit in reducing our dependency on it. Use oil for only products than require it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I've always been a little ambivalent and conflicted about our interventions in the Middle East.

I was instinctively opposed to the Iraq war and there has been appalling loss of life, but there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people will be considerably better off as a result of that conflict.

The US had little choice but to get involved with Afganistan after 9/11. That said, I think there is little to justify an ongoing presence over there.

As for Libya I think, on balance, our involvement to the extent we have exercised it is a correct one. Gaddafi is/was a monster and the opportunity to remove him was too great. Moreover I think there is a real prospect of a more democratic and open Middle East emerging as a result of his downfall which has to be good for the future of mankind.

Furthermore I don't get hung up on the whole oil thing. Oil supply and stability is essential to maintain the thin veneer of civilisation on planet earth. If people want a snapshot of what oil insecurity would look like, the civil unrest earlier this month would look like a village fete by comparison. I like to live in the real world, as unpleasant as it is sometimes.

But I do now feel that enough is enough. I think that irrespective of what develops in the coming months and years we should leave the Middle East to sort itself out. We have, hopefully, given them a nudge in the right direction and they can create the societies that their people aspire to more readily as a result of that. But enough British (and non-British) blood has been shed and given the financial situation we currently find ourselves in I'm afraid that economical reality has its part to play in this policy decision too.

And for that reason Obama, I'm out.

 

[stonerblue]

I've always been a little ambivalent and conflicted about our interventions in the Middle East.

I was instinctively opposed to the Iraq war and there has been appalling loss of life, but there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people will be considerably better off as a result of that conflict.

The US had little choice but to get involved with Afganistan after 9/11. That said, I think there is little to justify an ongoing presence over there.

As for Libya I think, on balance, our involvement to the extent we have exercised it is a correct one. Gaddafi is/was a monster and the opportunity to remove him was too great. Moreover I think there is a real prospect of a more democratic and open Middle East emerging as a result of his downfall which has to be good for the future of mankind.

Furthermore I don't get hung up on the whole oil thing. Oil supply and stability is essential to maintain the thin veneer of civilisation on planet earth. If people want a snapshot of what oil insecurity would look like, the civil unrest earlier this month would look like a village fete by comparison. I like to live in the real world, as unpleasant as it is sometimes.

But I do now feel that enough is enough. I think that irrespective of what develops in the coming months and years we should leave the Middle East to sort itself out. We have, hopefully, given them a nudge in the right direction and they can create the societies that their people aspire to more readily as a result of that. But enough British (and non-British) blood has been shed and given the financial situation we currently find ourselves in I'm afraid that economical reality has its part to play in this policy decision too.

And for that reason Obama, I'm out.

Why?

 

[becomingparanoid]

The mistake most people make is thinking that politicians make decisions for the 'right' reasons. Every decision they make is due to vested interests of some description. These so called humanitarian reasons rarely line up with anything the public would agree with. I never cease to be amazed at how humanitarian reasons stop at borders of countries with no oil.

 

[Mugatu]

The whole "it's for oil" argument is fatally flawed seeing as BP have been huge investors and have been drilling there (and making money) for about 8 years before this recent trouble.

You get the same argument for every bit of pagga in the Middle East, "Oh it's all about oil". But what's happened to fuel prices in the West since Iraq? Oh that's right, they've doubled. How much Iraqi oil do Western companies "own"? Erm... none.

To be honest though I expect nothing less than vapid, ill thought out conspiracy theories and half baked ideas from one or two of the intelligentsia on here. (Yes OP, that's aimed at you). I think when you can spell Libya that's a good start down the road to being able to discuss it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I've always been a little ambivalent and conflicted about our interventions in the Middle East.

I was instinctively opposed to the Iraq war and there has been appalling loss of life, but there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraqi people will be considerably better off as a result of that conflict.

The US had little choice but to get involved with Afganistan after 9/11. That said, I think there is little to justify an ongoing presence over there.

As for Libya I think, on balance, our involvement to the extent we have exercised it is a correct one. Gaddafi is/was a monster and the opportunity to remove him was too great. Moreover I think there is a real prospect of a more democratic and open Middle East emerging as a result of his downfall which has to be good for the future of mankind.

Furthermore I don't get hung up on the whole oil thing. Oil supply and stability is essential to maintain the thin veneer of civilisation on planet earth. If people want a snapshot of what oil insecurity would look like, the civil unrest earlier this month would look like a village fete by comparison. I like to live in the real world, as unpleasant as it is sometimes.

But I do now feel that enough is enough. I think that irrespective of what develops in the coming months and years we should leave the Middle East to sort itself out. We have, hopefully, given them a nudge in the right direction and they can create the societies that their people aspire to more readily as a result of that. But enough British (and non-British) blood has been shed and given the financial situation we currently find ourselves in I'm afraid that economical reality has its part to play in this policy decision too.

And for that reason Obama, I'm out.

Why?

Well I thought I'd explained that in my post but here goes.

Some see our involvement in the Middle East as nothing but an exercise in ensuring oil security.

Others see it as a mission, or crusade if you will, to liberate the Arabic (and Iranian) people from despotic regimes.

The truth, as ever, lies somewhere in the middle.

I think as things stand oil security is, for want of a better word, secured, and there is a realistic prospect of better societies emerging in countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya and possibly even Iran.

Even strong advocates of interventionalism (which I am not) must concede you cannot keep indefinitely intervening. There has to be a point at which you say - we've done enough. I believe we've reached that point.

The people of the Middle East now have enough positive momentum behind them to now sort themselves out imo. And we should allow them to shape their own futures as much as is possible.



Edit - just noticed what you highlighted, apologies.

Because the Afgan govenrnment were harbouring Osama Bin Laden.

 

[BulgarianPride]

The whole "it's for oil" argument is fatally flawed seeing as BP have been huge investors and have been drilling there (and making money) for about 8 years before this recent trouble.

You get the same argument for every bit of pagga in the Middle East, "Oh it's all about oil". But what's happened to fuel prices in the West since Iraq? Oh that's right, they've doubled. How much Iraqi oil do Western companies "own"? Erm... none.

To be honest though I expect nothing less than vapid, ill thought out conspiracy theories and half baked ideas from one or two of the intelligentsia on here. (Yes OP, that's aimed at you). I think when you can spell Libya that's a good start down the road to being able to discuss it.

So speaking about conspiracies and Iraq, has the west found the weapons of mass destruction? Or were they purely imaginary?