[the ikara cult]

I said, quite explicitly, that it poses a threat to the people of Iran.
I did not say that this needed to involve invading Iran, which would be lunacy

You havent stated your position, yet again, so can i assume that your position is we ignore Iran and dont do or say anything against the regime there? If youre gonna ask me about my position please come with a position of your own

[the ikara cult]

To all of you: This is not my radio show, i do want you to express your opinions rather than just react to mine. Thanks

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Good good, i share those reservations as a matter of fact. The US fucked up massively in how it dealt with postwar Iraq, the incompetance was absoulutely criminal (Just because i think it was right to remove Saddam Hussein doesnt mean i cant criticise that aspect of the war).

At what point did you decide that his removal was necessary? Throughout the west's support for his regime, particularly during the Iran-Iraq wars? Or did you decide the time was right when Bush and Blair said so?

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

I also have problems with the way Israel has conducted itself, although thats a whole other massive discussion.

But entirely relevant to this one.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

The key matter for me though is what the Iranians want.

EXACTLY. And who do you think the Iranian people consider the greatest threat, their own leaders or the US? I think I know the answer to that one.

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

I would prefer you answered the question first if thats ok, seeing as ive spent this whole thread answering questions

I thought I had answered the question.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

I never asked you for your position on Iran, I questioned the points you made about it. As I have already said, I'm not interested in discussing personal opinions, that type of discussion is usually detrimental understanding the facts. You're not interested in responding to the points I or anyone else has made, only in reducing this conversation to a discussion of opinions in order to cover over your attempt to use unfounded speculative opinions as a stand in for facts you don't posses. If you try to do this again I won't bother repeating myself.

This conversation is by definition a discussion of opinions, and i have made mine clear. Im happy to consider the matter closed.

[the ikara cult]

At what point did you decide that his removal was necessary? Throughout the west's support for his regime, particularly during the Iran-Iraq wars? Or did you decide the time was right when Bush and Blair said so?

Saddam should have been removed in 1991, but alas that didnt happen and 500,000 Iraqi children died because of sanctions. I wasnt around during the US support for him, and that was absolutely wrong, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
That fact doesnt mean that removing him in 2003 is wrong though. If you think he should have stayed in power, you have to explain what would have happened in that situation

EXACTLY. And who do you think the Iranian people consider the greatest threat, their own leaders or the US? I think I know the answer to that one.

If you think its the USA then youve never read anything by an Iranian blogger ever

I thought I had answered the question.

to be honest ive spent most of this evening answering points by you, kknik and Tesla so youve overlapped alot, and i am but a lowly unevolved homosapien. Im glad you bothered to actually engage my points at least.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter

If he had have stayed in power, Iraq would have remained a relative stable secular state, and everyone who died as a result of the conflict, that's about a million civillians, would have been spared. The countries infasctructure would not have been destroyed. Saddam would have ditched the dollar as he planned to, and it's likely that this move, coupled with the oil revenues would have led to increased propserity. He may have kept those revenues for himself, or he may have invested some of it into the country to maintain his power/stability. The revenues could have helped to buy things like medical supplies which the US sanctions were stopping from coming into the country.

Hallelujah youve actually expressed an opinion.
I wish youd been willing to say what you think earlier, cos its getting kinda late over here now.

Ive acknowleged the massive fuckups in the postwar planning, i feel i should emphasise that again.

First, it was not a secular state, Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, though he utilised many Stalinist tactics during his reign (Stalinism was not secular)
If Saddam stayed in power, he would have eventually died leaving the country to be fought over between Uday and Qusay Hussein, who were about as sickening as it gets, im not prepared to let people like that own people and torture them. There would also have been a massive vaccuum in various parts of Iraq for its neighbours to invade, as its quite a big country.

If Saddam were still in power today, how do you think Iraq would look?

[the ikara cult]

im gonna go to sleep in a minute kids, please continue arguing on through the night

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

If you think he should have stayed in power, you have to explain what would have happened in that situation

It's impossible to say but it would be difficult to imagine it could be any worse than what has happened. According to the Lancet there were 655,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq. That was between 2003 and 2006. Some say that's a conservative estimate. Would it be unreasonable to say that that figure has risen to 1 million in the last 5 years? So we can say there would be 1 million more Iraqi men, women and children than there are now.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

It's impossible to say but it would be difficult to imagine it could be any worse than what has happened. According to the Lancet there were 655,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq. That was between 2003 and 2006. Some say that's a conservative estimate. Would it be unreasonable to say that that figure has risen to 1 million in the last 5 years? So we can say there would be 1 million more Iraqi men, women and children than there are now.

There has been some dispute over the Lancet's figures, and the criminal incompetance of the US in the first few years of the war was as bad as it could get.

Incidentally, i didnt support the war at the time ( i was 18 ) and i actually marched against Bush when he came over here to visit in late 2003. I began to change my feelings in 2007 after i worked with some Iraqi Kurds. This doesnt qualify my position of course

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

There has been some dispute over the Lancet's figures, and the criminal incompetance of the US in the first few years of the war was as bad as it could get.

Incidentally, i didnt support the war at the time ( i was 18 ) and i actually marched against Bush when he came over here to visit in late 2003. I began to change my feelings in 2007 after i worked with some Iraqi Kurds. This doesnt qualify my position of course

There will always be disputes over figures. And all of the disputes over these figures appeared in the right wing press in America (I couldn't find any anywhere else although I'm ready to be corrected on this point).

However the reason I quoted the Lancet is because the number they produced is a lot more conservative than some others.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

There will always be disputes over figures. And all of the disputes over these figures appeared in the right wing press in America (I couldn't find any anywhere else although I'll stand corrected if necessary).

However the reason I quoted the Lancet is because the number they produced is a lot more conservative than some others.

there are other sources that critisise that study and its conclusions, if yoyu search for it on google its pretty easily available, its not all Fox News.

You probably hate this guy anyway, but its the first article i thought of

[Glice]

Can't be fucked to read all of that - read the first four paragraphs (poorly written, badly edited).

Question: Iraq was a fucking wreck. 'Our' (which is not 'our' in any meaningful sense) 'intervention' (which was, in fact a massacre) was still preferable to the continued atrocity of the last 30 years [hence we've not been into, say, Saudi].

My question is whether there is any mild rational [as in ratio-nal] or quantitative [as in 4m vs 6m] or qualitative [which you're incapable of, so fuck off] measure by which you might, theoretically, say that it's probably better that Saddam isn't there but it's better that 'we' [so called] aren't?

Answer must be without reference to my faith. Thanks [not thanks - actually, fuck you, you useless, self-involved prick]?

[Glice]

I answered your questions. You didn't like the answers. So you had a hysterical fit.

Now. Would you reply to my post, please?

[Glice]

Or fuck off. The latter is preferable.

[the ikara cult]

kknik you are now down with Tesla, hats off to you

[Glice]

No, I answered your questions. As you know. It was an unequivocal yes.

Are you going to answer my question? Or would you rather fuck off? Because I for one would really appreciate your taking your boring arse-hair twiddling, juvenile fuckwittery elsewhere. Obviously, my saying that only indulges your massive inability to get away from your mild and limpid incapacity to ignore bollocks that people natter on the internet, but seriously - you have absolutely nothing to say that is of any interest to anyone but yourself.

As you have problems reading (it's ok - lots of people do) I'll repeat that - you have absolutely nothing to say that is of any interest to anyone but yourself.

[Glice]

Unequivocal yes. I can't make it clearer. Is it trolling or the possibility that someone might, perhaps, have a different outlook on the world to you?

Also, your 'anti-violence' thing is clearly bullshit, except you have a narrow ontology of violence. But you're not really interested in discussion, are you dear?

[Glice]

You're cute. Your questions were about impossible materiality [Marxist] with a limited ontology [Hegelian]. And that involves me giving you a lot more rope than you gave me yourself. To which I continue to answer yes. You don't understand that yes because you're young and a bit stupid. But you don't know how to interrogate that yes. Because you're a fuckwit. A fuckwit who's had the misfortune to read some books with some big words, and a fuckwit who's had the misfortune to think you've understood them. Which you haven't.

Of course, I've left gaping holes in that yes, which you could've interrogated and exposed. But rather than do that, you angrily and hostily shut them down, rather than point out, as some very intelligent Atheists (note the capital A) have done, that I'm talking bollocks [with a limited context]. You don't, essentially, have anything to say and really need to work on your ability to engage with society. Nasty, perhaps, but also true.

[Glice]

Oh, little Nick. With your lovely little inability to actually engage with anyone who criticises you - even slightly - it's really cute.

Except.

You actually just spend all of your time throwing out criticisms of people which they ignore. And you spend your time throwing out naif-anti-capitalist stuff that everyone vaguely agrees with but, ultimately, everyone else on this board [with the solitary exception of you and who ever else is less than 18] just goes 'yeah - but in fairness, I need a job/ education/ something other than whinging at fictional internet nobodies'.

You're not trolling me. I'm pissed, and have had a grand night tonight. I'm amusing myself. Check my sig - it's what I do. What you're doing is piling more and more self-hatred upon yourself. I'm good with words - I'm glad you've noticed. I think the majority of this board has. You've replied several times to a pissed Glice - we're all trolls. You're aware of the chans - you know that no-one is the victor in the trolling [or, at least, you're aware that Herr Slowly knows the rules better than anyone]. You don't have anything to say and no-one is trolled by you - they just find you boring. They do. Really, really, they do. KIS is a better troll than you. You'll probably not notice that for a while, but s/he really is.

[Derek]

i didn't read the thread so i'll just leave this here