RE: Iraq Senate Vote

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Iraq Senate Vote

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iraq Senate Vote

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/23/2006 10:49:21 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

LaM;

I am staying out of this for now. When I start a thread about Israel I'm sure you'll be there. And I think I will.

T

P.S. LaM, you said something nice about me recently, I respect that. It shows you to have a mind. Maybe even an open mind. When I get started, it will be all fact.

T

(in reply to UtopianRanger)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 12:50:40 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

As long as it's about ISRAEL, and not about JEWS, we can have a rational argument about it. You might even find that I agree with you.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 2:03:20 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

It's not capitalism. It's crony capitalism, and it stinks. I know all you Israel-haters try to find Israel at the root of every single problem in the world today, but we have plenty of villains in our own government too.

The reason I brought up Isreal is because Blair sold Britain the war on the fact that Bush promised to put effort into a more even handed approach to that conflict. As for my views on Isreal, they differ little from Jack Straw the then British foreign minister who is himself a Jew and differs little from many other Jewish members of the British Labour party. Chirac told Blair he is in fantasyland to believe Bush would keep his promise and I guess everyone knew he was right.

As for cronyism between the Bush administration and such companies as Haliburton, that was widely predicted here before the war started. It just has the effect of confirming the reasons why many people believed the war was nothing to do with the purported reasons for fighting it. It is the nature of big money to seek power directly or through proxy. If they aren't jackals then they are more venal predators.

As Sartre said 'When the rich make war it's the poor that die.' Nothing new there.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 6/24/2006 2:13:19 AM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 2:50:30 AM

Kedikat

Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline

Did you hear about the case of FOX being brought up on charges of false reporting?
They got off on the charges. Not due to them being factual, or not, not even within the bounds of justifiable details of fastbreaking news fuzziness.

They got off, because as far as the rules are now interpreted, news need not be factual. Sad but true. It seems there is no need for any source of information to actually be factual. News, medical journals, advertisements, on and on......

Truth, facts, reality. Old fashioned concepts, with no place in todays world. There seems to be no place to seek the true and consequential realm of reality. You can spin and lawyer anything to the outerlimits of reality, and it comes back as real, if you have the cash and time. Say it often enough and it is true. Pay enough, lobby enough, and it is a new truth that we all have to live with.

Pity the children. What have we done? They rightfully should hate us.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 3:27:04 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I can't remember who said, the truth is the first casualty of war. It no longer is because there is no truth to begin with.

I agree Kedikat, our generation has proved to be rather decadent and succeeding generations will pay the price and have every right to hate us for what they are about to inherit.

(in reply to Kedikat)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 11:35:08 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

I hadn't heard that before. Do you know of something I could read about it? I'm not challenging you, but I haven't read that Blair involved Israel in the Iraq war in any way.

What I HAVE read is that Blair sold the war on the grounds that Saddam was a dangerous man.

Edited to add: I think I see what you're talking about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,924412,00.html

That doesn't really bear out what you said. Supposedly, Blair announced that settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would become the top priority after the war in Iraq was over. And he pissed off a lot of right-wing Israelis with that remark. But that's a far cry from saying that the war in Iraq is being waged for the benefit of Israel, which is what you were implying before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

The reason I brought up Isreal is because Blair sold Britain the war on the fact that Bush promised to put effort into a more even handed approach to that conflict.

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 6/24/2006 11:45:37 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 12:00:28 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I apologise, my mistake. I meant to say or should have said - one of the grounds on which he sold the war was that Bush had promised to make the Isreali -Palastinian conflict a priority and implied that Bush would have a more even handed approach .

Very different from what I wrote I admit and apologise.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 12:06:03 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Blair's reasons for joining the war were as changeable as the British weather as he wriggled in the storm of opposition to the war.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 3:40:26 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

Blairs primary sell on the war in Iraq was the weapons of mass destruction issue. The issue of a wider settlement to the Middle East issue which would involve a perceived more even handed approach to Israel and the Palestinians was a seperate set of spin which he linked in. One of the "suggested" reasons for Blair being so supportive of the US and damaging his personal position was his clearly concern at the potential for even wider US isolation and the US going it completely alone. For direct alternative views to FOX or CNN try the Reuters or BBC web pages they provide alternative, not necessarily more accurate perspectives.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/24/2006 5:35:12 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Blair's primary sell on the war depended on who his audience was and what he was saying on British TV was widely different to what he was saying on continental TV where Chirac and Schroeder were accusing Blair giving the US a diplomatic fig leaf for an illegal war. Blair was isolated in Europe on policies nothing to do with the war and not wanting to be isolated from both Europe and the US. He chose the US and war. He gave many reasons to cover as many constituencies as possible and eventually came down on the mantra of Weapons Of Mass Destruction which was a phrase that had never been used before the issue of the Iraq war came up. Chirac told Blair, in regard to WMD, he was probably in fantasyland and so he was.

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Getting out RE: Iraq Senate Vote - 6/28/2006 7:28:59 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

Chirac's hostility to Blair has been well known for some time and the French German Motor of Europe by its very nature will tend to isolate the UK. The sell in Europe on other non WMD issues is a bit of a red herring, as in common with all politicians they spin any comments. The quotes from Blair and when he spcifically made statements about Iraq in any parliamentary statement referred to WMD as the reason for British involvement with the invasion. Subsequent events notably the scapegoating of a civil servent by the government showed Blair to be either incompetent - i.e. he did not read and understand the security service reports - or to just be a plain liar.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 31