Is this a good thing?
lo yeeOn
it was "a good thing" to get rid of Saddam, referring to the US/UK-led
invasion of Iraq.
Was it?
Earlier today in Baghdad and Mosul, several bomb explosions struck
again, after at least 127 people were killed in multiple car bombings
in Baghdad the week before.
According to BBC:
Analysts say al-Qaeda is trying to destabilise Iraq ahead of March
polls.
Saddam might have been a dictator who was brutual against the Kurds
who sought indepedence, but there were no bomb attacks, no al Qaeda.
And now, after our aggression, bomb attacks simply would not go away.
Whether it is al Qaeda or something more indigenous, Iraq has been
clearly destabilized by the invasion. And in my opinion, the wounds
the war has inflicted on the Iraqi people simply cannot begin to heal
before all foreign soldiers have left the country.
Saddam might be a bad ruler, depending on who you are talking to.
Some think that Mao and G W Bush are many times worse. But a war of
aggression in the name of getting rid of Saddam and for the purpose of
reaping lucrative oil drilling contracts is sinister with consequences
beyond anyone's control, not the Iraqis themselves, nor foreigners
like us even with our superior guns and missiles.
The Iraq war is a big stain in America's foreign policy. If we
stubbornly hang on to it, Obama may actually get an arrest warrant
from some country someday, like the former Israeli foreign minister
Livni is now getting from a London court for her role in the latest
Palestinian killing spree.
And notice that these days, bomb attacks don't even require killing
yourself, literally, to make them happen. I.e., no more suicide
bombers needed to commit terrorism. They detonate the devices, leave
their cars, and simply run away.
According to the BBC:
"A man left his car this morning and headed off almost at a run. When
my son approached the vehicle, it blew up," said the mother of a
victim of the bomb blast.
So, how can prolonged troop deployment in Iraq help "stabilize" Iraq,
which the war destabilized? No way, Jose'!
lo yeeOn
========
lo yeeOn
D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 10:58�pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> A few days ago, Tony Blair said (again, for the umpteenth time) that
>> it was "a good thing" to get rid of Saddam, referring to the US/UK-led
>> invasion of Iraq.
>>
>> Was it?
>>
>> Earlier today in Baghdad and Mosul, several bomb explosions struck
>> again, after at least 127 people were killed in multiple car bombings
>> in Baghdad the week before.
>
>Iraq's petroleum reserves, and since it used the USA's military to
>carry out the invasion.
Ah . . ., didn't know that BP is Britain. And I thought Tony Blair
was Prime Minister of Britain, not board chairman of BP. Furthermore,
last I heard Tony was a socialist, leader of a party of the workers,
not of fatcat energy investors. (I recall that during his tenure as
PM of Britain, some rank-and-file members were upset that Tony Blair
was invited to an International Socialist Congress meeting but the
organizers defended the invitation, saying he was their socialist
brother/comrade-in-arms. Of course, by then, Tony was already a
comrade-in-arms of George Bush, leading Britain to become the US's
best-known ally in the war of aggression against Iraq. And recently,
I read also that Tony was only an ardent Bush poodle after Bush flown
him to his Texas ranch for a stay. And the next day, according to his
top aides, changed his tune and decided that Saddam's Iraq did have
WMD and used his prestige to make pitch-fevered sale of the war to the
rest of the world. What we don't know was what Bush and his English
guest discussed at the ranch that changed the latter's mind so quickly
about the existence of WMD in Iraq, an assertion which never had much
of any evidence to begin with and which turned out to be a total lie.
Perhaps Bush showed him a file our country has gathered on Tony which
would really embarass him if shown to the public. The key point in
the public's suspicion of what went on behind closed door is that they
might have convinced each other for some reason, but they never had
anything to show the public that would support their case. To this
day, people are still wondering: "What was going on between you and
Bush, Tony? . . . Don't just give us this litany of "getting rid of
Saddam is a good thing" bullcrap . . ..)
lo yeeOn
========
Tony Blair is quoted as having said:
"I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my
intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I
believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an
existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for
co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands
for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because
only through equality in our economic circumstances can our
individuality develop properly.
* Hansard, House of Commons, 6th Series, vol. 45, col. 316.
* Maiden speech as MP for Sedgefield, 6 July 1983.
. . ."
(From Wikiquote: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tony_Blair)
Original message reposted here:
A few days ago, Tony Blair said (again, for the umpteenth time) that
it was "a good thing" to get rid of Saddam, referring to the
US/UK-led invasion of Iraq.
Was it?
Earlier today in Baghdad and Mosul, several bomb explosions struck
again, after at least 127 people were killed in multiple car bombings
in Baghdad the week before.
According to BBC:
Analysts say al-Qaeda is trying to destabilise Iraq ahead of March
polls.
Saddam might have been a dictator who was brutual against the Kurds
who sought indepedence, but there were no bomb attacks, no al Qaeda.
And now, after our aggression, bomb attacks simply will not go away.
Whether it is al Qaeda or something more indigenous, Iraq has been
clearly destabilized by the invasion. And in my opinion, the wounds
the war has inflicted on the Iraqi people simply cannot begin to heal
before all foreign soldiers have left the country.
Saddam might have been a bad ruler, depending on who you are talking
to. Some think that Mao and G W Bush are many times worse. But a
war of aggression in the name of getting rid of Saddam and for the
purpose of reaping lucrative oil drilling contracts is sinister with
consequences beyond anyone's control, not the Iraqis themselves, nor
foreigners like us even with our superior guns and missiles.
The Iraq war is a big stain in America's foreign policy. If we
stubbornly hang on to it, Obama may actually get an arrest warrant
from some country someday, like the former Israeli foreign minister
Livni is now getting from a London court for her role in the latest
Palestinian killing spree.
And notice that these days, bomb attacks don't even require killing
yourself, literally, to make them happen. I.e., no more suicide
bombers needed to commit terrorism. They detonate the devices, leave
their cars, and simply run away.
According to the BBC:
"A man left his car this morning and headed off almost at a
run. When my son approached the vehicle, it blew up," said the
mother of a victim of the bomb blast.
So, how can prolonged troop deployment in Iraq help "stabilize" Iraq,
which the war destabilized? No way, Jose'!
lo yeeOn
========
>
>Now if only Britain could trick the USA into toppling Libya's Khadafi,
>then the British PM would be spared the indignity of performing oral
>sex on him in exchange for oil drilling contracts.