RugbyRebels

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:24 am**

If Iran had invaded Iraq under the same pretences, or Russia, or North Korea, or an African nation, or any non-western country for that matter, do you honestly believe the US/UK wouldn't come out and flat out say the invasion was illegal? And most likely used as a reason to respond militarily?

Good point. And also consider how many brutal regimes America has actually propped up, from Shah Pahlavi in Iran, Suharto in Indo and Mobutu in Congo, to name just a few, through the Samozas in Nicaragua, the Duvaliers in Haiti and Pinochet in Chile, to Hissene Habre in Chad, Mubarak in Egypt (and now al-Sisi), the House of Saud, and, of course, Saddam Hussein himself when he was slaughtering Iranians & Kurds. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, and does not include the apartheid regimes of South Africa and present day Israel, of course. So the idea the invasion of Iraq was carried out for humane reasons is preposterous. It was carried out to secure control of the oil industry after Hussein refused to play ball, and to set up another long-term conflict so vital to the military industrial complex and arms traders.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:25 am**

jared_7 wrote:
Digby wrote:
jared_7 wrote:
so as things stand whose international law? who enforces it? who pays for it?

The US's.

The US with the help of its lackeys like the UK.

The rest of the world.

By the looks of things.

So we agree falling back on 'international law' is a pie in the sky move/wish?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:30 pm**

This guy is just unbelievable:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36733979

What was the essential check that kept Cameron from invading Syria? Probably Iraq, unfortunately, but there was a referendum of sorts was there not? Or at least the public were engaged? Blair persists with this "world is a better place" mantra when it manifestly is not. What is the legal framework surrounding his profiting off this episode? He has amassed a fortune on the back of his "experience" with Iraq, and for him to promote the action in the face of this would be a massive conflict of interest in any other context. Is it possible to prevent him from involvement in future diplomatic contracts which involve the exchange of money? The guy is a menace on the world stage as he always sticks his oar in calling for "boots on the ground" and "strong military response" and such like. He is a far more destabilising influence than Saddam could ever have hoped to be.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:34 pm**

He should be facing the same fate as Saddam.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:39 pm**

Lizard wrote:From your link:

"the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant."

Just one man's opinion but obviously there's a range of estimates out there.

Personally, I find it very artificial to apply a binary legal/illegal description to war. International "law" is in any case a pretty iffy concept. My view is that violent conflicts, in terms of general justifications, fall somewhere on a spectrum of more or less justifiable. Individual events during wars can also be more or less justifiable. Eg opposing Japan's expansionism in WWII was fairly justifiable but dropping a second nuclear warhead probably less so.

The problem I have with the second Iraq war is that although you could say removing a fairly horrid dictator is justifiable, practically every slightly informed pundit (hell, even me) predicted that without a strong man keeping a lid on shit, Iraq would blow apart, most likely due to one or all of Kurdish separatism, Shia/Sunni internecine bullshit and /or radical Islam anti-westernism. Without a credible follow-up plan, deposing the regime was plainly a dumb idea.

Echoing MP's post above I'd ask you has deposing Saddam been beneficial to anyone other than those that have made a profit..?. It's worth noting that Dubya's closest political allies were execs in the oil industy. Commerce secretary, Treasury secretary,...even Condy was a Chevron Director.

So many wars are just about profit and the propaganda is reverse engineered to suit the aim, it amazes me that it's still such a taboo subject for journalists. Blair even had the gall to call it a 'conspiracy theory'.......which looked pretty dumb after the US military leaders started saying it was clearly about the oil.
For me, my spectrum of justifications for war range from 'totally without justification' to 'totally unjustifiable'. Given that we now have a clearer psychological and physical understanding of what happens to the grunts after they've been in a 'theatre of war' (obscene expression) you'd think we'd have decided it's a very bad idea. But there are always knuts willing to let others die for their profit.
We usually call them psychopaths and sadly many world leaders and entrepreneurs are terrifyingly high on the psychopathic spectrum.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:42 pm**

Len wrote:He should be facing the same fate as Saddam.

Cameron or Blair? or both, alongside most front-benchers from both's terms in office?

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:55 pm**

I'm still undecided on whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not, it's not like it was all sunshine before, and the oil price boomed in the early part of the 21st Century so who knows what Saddam might have done with that extra money. That said to alone send the troops in so ill equipped because it was politically easier to declare the invasion when they did condemns all those supposedly involved as leaders, and then to have no plan in place for what came next remains beyond stupid, and it's not like we didn't know about the Middle East (and our all too often appalling role in its history)

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:08 pm**

Digby wrote:I'm still undecided on whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not, it's not like it was all sunshine before, and the oil price boomed in the early part of the 21st Century so who knows what Saddam might have done with that extra money. That said to alone send the troops in so ill equipped because it was politically easier to declare the invasion when they did condemns all those supposedly involved as leaders, and then to have no plan in place for what came next remains beyond stupid, and it's not like we didn't know about the Middle East (and our all too often appalling role in its history)

He would have devalued the PetroDollar and set up a market that would have broken the Saudi cartel. The untapped fields are/were vast.
As far as Dubya was concerned the US could not allow anyone else to have it. What is happening in Syria is identical. Except it's gas.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:23 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:I'm still undecided on whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not, it's not like it was all sunshine before, and the oil price boomed in the early part of the 21st Century so who knows what Saddam might have done with that extra money. That said to alone send the troops in so ill equipped because it was politically easier to declare the invasion when they did condemns all those supposedly involved as leaders, and then to have no plan in place for what came next remains beyond stupid, and it's not like we didn't know about the Middle East (and our all too often appalling role in its history)
He would have devalued the PetroDollar and set up a market that would have broken the Saudi cartel. The untapped fields are/were vast.
As far as Dubya was concerned the US could not allow anyone else to have it. What is happening in Syria is identical. Except it's gas.

Well that's one prediction.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:29 pm**

Digby wrote: Well that's one prediction.

Nah. Not a prediction, a starkly evident truth.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:40 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:I'm still undecided on whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not, it's not like it was all sunshine before, and the oil price boomed in the early part of the 21st Century so who knows what Saddam might have done with that extra money. That said to alone send the troops in so ill equipped because it was politically easier to declare the invasion when they did condemns all those supposedly involved as leaders, and then to have no plan in place for what came next remains beyond stupid, and it's not like we didn't know about the Middle East (and our all too often appalling role in its history)
He would have devalued the PetroDollar and set up a market that would have broken the Saudi cartel. The untapped fields are/were vast.
As far as Dubya was concerned the US could not allow anyone else to have it. What is happening in Syria is identical. Except it's gas.

It's certainly not identical. Syria has a tiny amount of gas.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:42 pm**

Most damning of all is that both Bush & Blair were re-elected AFTER the invasion. This was not only about two evil leaderships. It was about an evil ideology prevalent in two jingoistic societies. There's no getting away from the arrogance and racism that allowed that invasion to happen, and continued to turn a blind eye to its disastrous consequences for a number of years afterward.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:51 pm**

Stones of granite wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:I'm still undecided on whether going into Iraq was a good decision or not, it's not like it was all sunshine before, and the oil price boomed in the early part of the 21st Century so who knows what Saddam might have done with that extra money. That said to alone send the troops in so ill equipped because it was politically easier to declare the invasion when they did condemns all those supposedly involved as leaders, and then to have no plan in place for what came next remains beyond stupid, and it's not like we didn't know about the Middle East (and our all too often appalling role in its history)
He would have devalued the PetroDollar and set up a market that would have broken the Saudi cartel. The untapped fields are/were vast.
As far as Dubya was concerned the US could not allow anyone else to have it. What is happening in Syria is identical. Except it's gas.
It's certainly not identical. Syria has a tiny amount of gas.

It's the corridor of the pipeline from either Iran/Qatar. Hence the term 'Pipeline wars'.
By stymieing Gazprom's flow of gas from Iran to the European market,.....they bolster the Qataris field. This pipeline war is costing the US very little Wonga. They just have to arm a few psychopathic 15thC towelheads. Give them a couple of hundred 4x4's and a few .50 cal's and they're happy.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:59 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote: Well that's one prediction.
Nah. Not a prediction, a starkly evident truth.

That being desperate for cash he'd have driven down revenues? Luckily for him if true his generals would've let that go no problem.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:59 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Stones of granite wrote:
kk67 wrote:
He would have devalued the PetroDollar and set up a market that would have broken the Saudi cartel. The untapped fields are/were vast.
As far as Dubya was concerned the US could not allow anyone else to have it. What is happening in Syria is identical. Except it's gas.
It's certainly not identical. Syria has a tiny amount of gas.
It's the corridor of the pipeline from either Iran/Qatar. Hence the term 'Pipeline wars'.

No, that's an over-simplification. Two routes were proposed for a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. The first was via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, and alternative was through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.

Assad refused the route through Syria, allegedly to protect Russian interests. As far as I know, the suggestion that Qatar fomented the uprising in Syria stems from one single analyst. However, most people seem to think that the objective by the CIA is to foment permanent unrest in the region and it's difficult to see how that is conducive to building and operating a gas pipeline.

Whatever the truth is, it is far from identical to what you describe as the Iraq situation.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:11 pm**

Stones of granite wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Stones of granite wrote: It's certainly not identical. Syria has a tiny amount of gas.
It's the corridor of the pipeline from either Iran/Qatar. Hence the term 'Pipeline wars'.
No, that's an over-simplification. Two routes were proposed for a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. The first was via Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, and alternative was through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.

Assad refused the route through Syria, allegedly to protect Russian interests. As far as I know, the suggestion that Qatar fomented the uprising in Syria stems from one single analyst. However, most people seem to think that the objective by the CIA is to foment permanent unrest in the region and it's difficult to see how that is conducive to building and operating a gas pipeline.

Whatever the truth is, it is far from identical to what you describe as the Iraq situation.

Sorry,...I've been editing my post.

Natural gas is the fuel that is reportedly, going to save us all. It's crucial for when the oil gets more complicated.

i.)Given the way the futures markets seem to dominate all of our beings, I'm surprised you're seeing war as a short term thing. The gas exists in Qatar and Iran......who can supply it is critical. The best supplier controls the price.
ii.) Fermenting unrest in a country is spectacularly useful to those companies that are extracting natural assets. They run their own police force.....that's the only extra expense. I grant you that building a pipeline in a desert country is not aided by having roving guerrillas,.....but that's currently working to the advantage of the US......they're happy for the current situation to continue for another 20 years. Just as long as Gazprom don't start to undercut the price and devalue the USD.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:17 pm**

Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote: Well that's one prediction.
Nah. Not a prediction, a starkly evident truth.
That being desperate for cash he'd have driven down revenues? Luckily for him if true his generals would've let that go no problem.

Driven down revenues..?. Hellfire,.....he was sitting on a field that would drown the Saudi's and the Israelites. He could have bottomed out the oil market and still make his country rich beyond Croesus.
This is the 4th biggest oilfield in the world and the cheapest to extract and pipe. (political situations being compliant)

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:35 pm**

It seems staggering to me that we have so many historical experiences, even from the English Reich marshals, of cruel and unnecessary wars fought by deluded victims, under totally unrepresentative assertions, for the benefit of a few twats. Even Churchill only fought WWII because he thought he was protecting the economic British Empire.

We only went for Napoleon because he halted the trade of Port to all those Old Boy dinners. We promised Poland we'd be there for them,....but couldn't be arsed until it got to France. War is always about Trade. And War is murder and rape, for those that experience it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:58 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Nah. Not a prediction, a starkly evident truth.
That being desperate for cash he'd have driven down revenues? Luckily for him if true his generals would've let that go no problem.
Driven down revenues..?. Hellfire,.....he was sitting on a field that would drown the Saudi's and the Israelites. He could have bottomed out the oil market and still make his country rich beyond Croesus.
This is the 4th biggest oilfield in the world and the cheapest to extract and pipe. (political situations being compliant)

Actually a more accurate reflection of Sadaam isn't he'd have tried to have achieved the highest returns, nor that he'd have drive down prices, but really that he'd have done whatever he fancied on a day to day basis. Some days the taps would've been on full, others sealed up, and really he'd have been a force for unpredictability (and whilst a lack of stability tends to drive prices up I don't see how we'd really know)

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:29 pm**

Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:
That being desperate for cash he'd have driven down revenues? Luckily for him if true his generals would've let that go no problem.
Driven down revenues..?. Hellfire,.....he was sitting on a field that would drown the Saudi's and the Israelites. He could have bottomed out the oil market and still make his country rich beyond Croesus.
This is the 4th biggest oilfield in the world and the cheapest to extract and pipe. (political situations being compliant)
Actually a more accurate reflection of Sadaam isn't he'd have tried to have achieved the highest returns, nor that he'd have drive down prices, but really that he'd have done whatever he fancied on a day to day basis. Some days the taps would've been on full, others sealed up, and really he'd have been a force for unpredictability (and whilst a lack of stability tends to drive prices up I don't see how we'd really know)

Yes, Bush and the Saudi's couldn't control the free market,..... so they decided war was the easier option.
This is what happens with an unregulated free market. The crooks and the warlords take control.

This is fecking basic stuff.....I'm sorry if I sound like UG but this is not complicated. War is never complicated. It's simple.
It's only the propaganda that is devious and necessarily complex.
We'd love to think that the multiple tribal/religious factions were the cause of all the strive in the Middle East,.... but since the 1700's the breakup of the Ottoman Empire has been a source of profit for Western countries....and we've destabilised it deliberately.
That's historic fact.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:34 pm**

kk67 wrote: This is what happens with an unregulated free market. The crooks and the warlords take control.

'tis also what happens in the various lefty regimes, and actually free markets tend to be more closely linked to having democratic elections and a free press

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:41 pm**

Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote: This is what happens with an unregulated free market. The crooks and the warlords take control.
'tis also what happens in the various lefty regimes, and actually free markets tend to be more closely linked to having democratic elections and a free press

I cannot tell you how happy they are to hear you say that. It's balls. Our opposition and our government are both in thrall to Murdoch.
The Yanks are even worse.

1 vote in 5 years does not make a democracy. And as both Dubya and Hilary have rigged elections in Florida and California respectively.....I'm calling BS.
This will be the next step for UK politics....the acceptance of a rigged vote.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:50 pm**

kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote: This is what happens with an unregulated free market. The crooks and the warlords take control.
'tis also what happens in the various lefty regimes, and actually free markets tend to be more closely linked to having democratic elections and a free press
I cannot tell you how happy they are to hear you say that. It's balls.

1 vote in 5 years does not make a democracy. And as both Dubya and Hilary have rigged elections in Florida and California respectively.....I'm calling BS.

There are certainly issues in the delivery of the voting system, partly I don't happen to like the voting system here or in the US, also I don't like the fraud we've introduced with the massive upsurge in postal votes, I don't like the demands for ID in the US to deal with tiny levels of fraud which deny many of the poorest a chance to vote, and the list goes on... but I'll take it over Cuba's system, or Venezuela's, or North Korea's, or China's

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:59 pm**

Digby wrote:
kk67 wrote:
Digby wrote:
'tis also what happens in the various lefty regimes, and actually free markets tend to be more closely linked to having democratic elections and a free press
I cannot tell you how happy they are to hear you say that. It's balls.

1 vote in 5 years does not make a democracy. And as both Dubya and Hilary have rigged elections in Florida and California respectively.....I'm calling BS.
There are certainly issues in the delivery of the voting system, partly I don't happen to like the voting system here or in the US, also I don't like the fraud we've introduced with the massive upsurge in postal votes, I don't like the demands for ID in the US to deal with tiny levels of fraud which deny many of the poorest a chance to vote, and the list goes on... but I'll take it over Cuba's system, or Venezuela's, or North Korea's, or China's

If voting changed anything, they'd ban it. Them or us.

Posted: **Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:06 pm**

kk67 wrote:
If voting changed anything, they'd ban it. Them or us.

I think perhaps I'll call it quits at this point, I suspect we both view the others comments as witless, and it just seems a pointless exchange.

RugbyRebels

Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott

Re: Chilcott