Ken bigley, unconfirmed death

[BakedBeans]

R.I.P

lets hope its not true..

[Mr. Anderson]

R.I.P

lets hope its not true..

Not to sound ignorant - but, well, I am I guess....who's Ken Bigley?

D

[BakedBeans]

Not to sound ignorant - but, well, I am I guess....who's Ken Bigley?

D

he is a man from liverpool england that was taken hostage in iraq and it looks like they beheaded/murdered him

[Mr. Anderson]

Ah - that's not good. Do you have a link to the story or did you hear about it somewhere.

D

[iGav]

Ah - that's not good. Do you have a link to the story or did you hear about it somewhere.

D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3726744.stm

I'm surprised it hasn't got coverage in the U.S., it's been on almost constantly here...

Blairs been taking some serious sh*t from some quarters for not negotiating with his captures to secure his freedom :rolleyes:

The UK doesn't negotiate with scum. :mad:

[BakedBeans]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3726744.stm

I'm surprised it hasn't got coverage in the U.S., it's been on almost constantly here...

Blairs been taking some serious sh*t from some quarters for not negotiating with his captures to secure his freedom :rolleyes:

The UK doesn't negotiate with scum. :mad:

you cant though can you... you cant start bargaining with terrorists... every terrorist and his dog will do it, as hard as it is for his family i can understand why we didnt negotiate,,,, we need to hurt falujah and hit it hard

[Brize]

we need to hurt falujah and hit it hard

Err...wasn't that the reason for Ken Bigley being taken hostage in the first place? :confused:

[iGav]

you cant though can you... you cant start bargaining with terrorists...

exactly... ;)

some people in this country just don't get that though. :rolleyes:

[BakedBeans]

Err...wasn't that the reason for Ken Bigley being taken hostage in the first place? :confused:

well lets roll over and take it then.... we ENGLISH are not like that..... we need to do something... put this baby to bed once and for all... i would if i were in charge (might well be the reason im not)

[hcuar]

Err...wasn't that the reason for Ken Bigley being taken hostage in the first place? :confused:

No... he was taken hostage because the terrorists hate anyone that is not suffering. They hate civilized world from the ground up. The only response they understand is a physical threat. I feel sorry for Ken, however he knew the risks going into Iraq. IMHO, the Americans and the British need to get more aggressive in their attacks.

[Brize]

well lets roll over and take it then.... we ENGLISH are not like that..... we need to do something... put this baby to bed once and for all... i would if i were in charge (might well be the reason im not)

And you think that bombing the hell out of al-Fallujah is going to "put this baby to bed once and for all"?

More likely, such an attack would result in the deaths of many innocent Iraqi civilians. In turn, this would lead to more British and American soldiers being killed, and more British and American civilians being captured and murdered.

Nice plan.

[BakedBeans]

And you think that bombing the hell out of al-Fallujah is going to "put this baby to bed once and for all"?

More likely, such an attack would result in the deaths of many innocent Iraqi civilians. In turn, this would lead to more British and American soldiers being killed, and more British and American civilians being captured and murdered.

Nice plan.

well firstly you can STOP putting words in my mouth....

i said we need to hit them hard and were it hurts that doesnt mean bomb them them or kill civis does it??

so yes its a better plan than sitting and doing nothing... how many times can we let this go?? how long before you can just take and kill hostages will no concequences...nice plan brize

[Brize]

The only response they understand is a physical threat.

Yep, that line of thinking certainly appears to be paying dividends at the moment.

[Brize]

i said we need to hit them hard and were it hurts that doesnt mean bomb them them or kill civis does it??

Okay, well what exactly do you mean by hitting them hard and where it hurts?

[BakedBeans]

they have a video of his execution (not confirmed)

tell me brize what would you do???

[geese]

tell me brize what would you do???

Its a right bugger knowing what to do, isnt it?

The hostage takers arnt exactly know for telling people where they are. Its a natural instinct to punish them, but how do you do this without making the situation worse for everyone? Its not like you can issue them with an arrest warrant.

And by everyone, I mean innocent Iraqi's, non-iraqi soldiers and non-iraqi contractors like Ken

Whatever the coalition does, it MUST stablise Iraq for things to improve. Offensive operations has only so far made things worse.

[hcuar]

Yep, that line of thinking certainly appears to be paying dividends at the moment.

Even if we were only attempting to police the area, the terrorists would still be kidnapping people. They don't like "westerners", it doesn't matter why we are there, only that we are there.

War sucks... people die... The current generation is too pampered to realize that people get hurt / die in a war. People think that modern techonology has elimated the risk in war. It hasn't. However, the people that we are attacking are evil people. They must be dealt with, otherwise we will witness another September 11th.

If you believe being a passivist would prevent attacks, look at Russia. They were against the Iraqi war, however they still experienced a terrorist attack.

Sorry for the rant, however too many people think the terrorists think rationally.

[BakedBeans]

they havnt made them worse for the iraqi people in genaral, with sadam hussien out of power that is a good thing... however... i feel we have no choice but to defend ourselves by going on the offensive..

[hcuar]

they havnt made them worse for the iraqi people in genaral, with sadam hussien out of power that is a good thing... however... i feel we have no choice but to defend ourselves by going on the offensive..


Again, I agree with you AL-FAMOUS. Just playing a defensive game doesn't leave the kind of options that playing an offensive game leaves you. It's often too late once you are backed into a corner and left with little choice. Many of the attrocities of the world could have been prevented if action would have been taken earlier.

[zelmo]

Random thoughts this thread sparked in me as I read through it...


I really feel for his family. I cannot imagine the pain they are going through, and I hope I never can.

It is a despicable quandary that the world now finds itself in. If you attack the terrorists in an attempt to eradicate their leadership, you only end up breeding the next generation of terrorists to perpetuate the problem. There does not yet seem to be an effective method of negotiating with terrorists, other than rolling over and giving them whatever they demand (obviously not an option). Reason with them? Hah, reason has nothing to do with it.

With no clear way out, I fear that it is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Sure seems like the bloodiest, most heinous acts are always performed in the name of some god or other. Aren't religion and faith supposed to be good things?

[BakedBeans]

Again, I agree with you AL-FAMOUS. Just playing a defensive game doesn't leave the kind of options that playing an offensive game leaves you. It's often too late once you are backed into a corner and left with little choice. Many of the attrocities of the world could have been prevented if action would have been taken earlier.

absolutely

we need to have a plan we need to let every terrorist and potential terrorist know that executing and beheading our civilians for no reason will be punished and will be dealt with, with the upmost severity... they need to be taught that we wont give in to terrorist that there is no chance for that to happen and that it will only disadvantage them

[virividox]

i agree my country negotiated with terrorists and that just made us look weak

[dobbin]

This is my plan. I think I would make a good prime minister. I couldn't do much worse than most of the ones we've had.


The aim of the insurgents, al-quaeda, etc is to get westerners (esp soldiers) out of the Arab countries. I don't know the exact numbers, but lets say there are 100,000 US/UK/etc soldiers in Iraq.

We should state publicly that for every month that goes by with no attacks on us, we will withdraw 2,000 soldiers. For every month that goes by where there are attacks on us, we will send 2,000 more soldiers.

So, if the scum stop attacking us, they will get what they want. (This is also what we want in the long run).

Assuming they play ball, we will have withdrawn our soldiers in 50 months, or about 4 years. I don't think we can realistically expect to do it much quicker than that.

This plan would give them some control over us, which is what they want. It would also hopefully stop the awful attacks on our soldiers.

I think we should include the current Iraqi regime, the new police and military in the deal, to protect them as they begin to take control of their country.

Perhaps we could make extra offers, such as we'll withdraw an extra 10,000 troops if they allow the elections to take place with no attacks or disruption.

[Rohan Moore]

they have a video of his execution (not confirmed)

tell me brize what would you do???

Many critics of the war would specifically have not waged the war in the first place because they could see no solution to the mess that would predictably follow.

If the US and British participants of this discussion were all to declare why they thought their Governments undertook this invasion, the accounts would vary starkly. Some accounts would appear certain, others confused, but for sure the accounts would differ. That variation alone should alert policymakers to develop a full understanding of the context of these events, and to approach the issue with knowledge and with moderation.

[geese]

This is my plan. I think I would make a good prime minister. I couldn't do much worse than most of the ones we've had.

[...]

We should state publicly that for every month that goes by with no attacks on us, we will withdraw 2,000 soldiers. For every month that goes by where there are attacks on us, we will send 2,000 more soldiers.

So, if the scum stop attacking us, they will get what they want. (This is also what we want in the long run).


Perhaps we could make extra offers, such as we'll withdraw an extra 10,000 troops if they allow the elections to take place with no attacks or disruption.

Sounds good in theory, but these terrorists arnt committing these vile acts for a free Iraq. They are doing for power. If Iraq was stable and boring, these people would be ordinary thugs. But when theres an instable government with a foreign power invading their country- BOOM! Look how much power these warlords can suddenly exert.

Thing of these people as Warlords - warlords need war to exert power, and to do that they need to stir it up. A free, peaceful Iraq? Nah, these Warlords arent interested.

[rainman::|:|]

if my city was being occupied by foreigners, illegally, and my friends/family/everyone was put under their martial law... i might take a hostage myself.

but oh yeah, since they are a different religion, and speak a different language, when they use drastic guerilla-warfare techniques to defend themselves they're "animals" and should be destroyed.

of course it's horrible that innocent people are dying over there, just trying to do their jobs. i have nothing but compassion for them and their families, it must be unimaginably horrible. blame the governments that started this war, don't blame Iraqis for trying to defend the last shreds of life as they know it. If you didn't see this coming, you're either ignorant of history or a member of the B. administration.

paul

[Brize]

tell me brize what would you do???

Aside from not having started a war in the first place?

Let's not forget that the war was predicated on intelligence to suggest that Iraq possessed WMD and therefore posed an immediate threat. This intelligence was later proved to be false. I say this because in terms of troop withdrawal, etc. it's important to remember that we have no justification for being in Iraq, and we should therefore look to ourselves before blaming others for a situation that has now spiralled out of control.

Yes, I would like to see the US and UK governments adopt alternative strategies in Iraq, and my reason for this is very simple. People on all sides are dying needlessly, and will continue to die if we don't try a different approach. We're contributing to a mindless cycle of violence that shows no sign of abating. It should be clear that our current strategies are not working, and more of the same isn't likely to change that.

Is it really that difficult to understand why the US and UK are hated and resented by the Iraqi people? We invaded their country, and remain as an occupying force. Yes, Saddam Hussein was toppled and captured, but the violence continues and we are no nearer to finding a solution for Iraq. By all accounts, the US and UK governments never anticipated that the war would be so arduous in terms of military casualties, and that it would be so difficult to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people in the long-term. We got it wrong, and we should be decent and honest enough to admit that.

If Iraq is to be given a chance for peace and prosperity, we need to withdraw our troops at the earliest opportunity and allow the UN to administer the situation with the aid of peacekeepers from nations other than those involved in the current conflict. We also need to transfer genuine sovereignty to the Iraqi people (control of the economy being a prime factor here) and let them rebuild their own country in their own image.

Well, AL-FAMOUS, I've answered your question. What exactly did you mean about hitting them hard and where it hurts?

[Blue Velvet]

...if my city was being occupied by foreigners, illegally, and my friends/family/everyone was put under their martial law... i might take a hostage myself...paul

This particular group of hostage-takers is not organised by an Iraqi, but a Jordanian... somebody who is relying on the chaos over there to do their thing.

[hcuar]

If Iraq is to be given a chance for peace and prosperity, we need to withdraw our troops at the earliest opportunity and allow the UN to administer the situation with the aid of peacekeepers from nations other than those involved in the current conflict. We also need to transfer genuine sovereignty to the Iraqi people (control of the economy being a prime factor here) and let them rebuild their own country in their own image.


Not to burst your bubble... but do you realize that the US and UK are for the most part the backbone of the UN. So... for example. If the US pulls it's troops from Iraq... That leaves. Well... Not too many troops.

We have already transfered sovereignty to Iraq. They are in complete control of their own country. If they said leave... we'd leave. BTW, what economy? Oil? They have resumed their normal business as a part of OPEC. It's not like the US is getting a break on oil (nor the UK). I guess Bush's friends the Saudis can't even cut the US a break. Ha.

[BakedBeans]

Aside from not having started a war in the first place?

well yes, but not a totally unfounded war.. to be honest the problem should have been "put to bed" in the nineties when you had a good president and we had a good prime-minister, they needed to take iraq apart at the seems then.

Let's not forget that the war was predicated on intelligence to suggest that Iraq possessed WMD and therefore posed an immediate threat. This intelligence was later proved to be false. I say this because in terms of troop withdrawal, etc. it's important to remember that we have no justification for being in Iraq, and we should therefore look to ourselves before blaming others for a situation that has now spiralled out of control.

the whole wmd thing was an excuse, i cant say that for sure as im not "in the know" but its blatant for anyone to see. the situation spiraled out of control because it wasnt dealt with properly in the first place. it is not our fault that the people of the arab world hate us.. (disclaimer: not all arabs ect ect not racist ect ect)

Yes, I would like to see the US and UK governments adopt alternative strategies in Iraq, and my reason for this is very simple. People on all sides are dying needlessly, and will continue to die if we don't try a different approach.

people have been dying needlessly for decades in iraq and iran, iraqi government/dictatorship was and has been for a long time killing its own people.

We're contributing to a mindless cycle of violence that shows no sign of abating. It should be clear that our current strategies are not working, and more of the same isn't likely to change that.

fallen regime
new government

the current strats are not all failures, but i agree there needs to be a change, a new way of fighting terrorism, for is it is said if you live by the sword, you die by the sword,

or maybe and eye for and eye a tooth for a tooth.


Is it really that difficult to understand why the US and UK are hated and resented by the Iraqi people? We invaded their country, and remain as an occupying force.

some people had been begging for that to happen and still we need to be there, do you think we are there just fighting and causing trouble... we are trying to stabilize a country that has been very volatile.

the US and UK governments never anticipated that the war would be so arduous in terms of military casualties, and that it would be so difficult to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people in the long-term. We got it wrong, and we should be decent and honest enough to admit that.

yes our governments got that wrong, we didnt anticipate how hard it would be... however my only accusation would be that we didnt hit hard and fast enough. we needed more intel (instead of saying yep WERE COMING IN BOYS) we needed to rid the country of the pockets of extremists and terrorist warlords before trying to make the country safe and friendly..

at this point i would like to add alot of the iraqi people are civilized, intelligent people and wonderful also (i know a few)

our main mistake was for not doing the job properly (again) not for going in for the wrong reasons.. after all there are plenty more countries and terrorist organizations that need to be brought to there knees before the world we be a better place.

If Iraq is to be given a chance for peace and prosperity, we need to withdraw our troops at the earliest opportunity and allow the UN to administer the situation with the aid of peacekeepers from nations other than those involved in the current conflict. We also need to transfer genuine sovereignty to the Iraqi people (control of the economy being a prime factor here) and let them rebuild their own country in their own image.

well if you think that it will be sorted out that way then i have to disagree (with respect)
withdrawing our troops now would leave a very very volatile situation, the very terrorists we are talking about WILL gain control of the country, not officially but they will control it in other ways,,,
we need to be there until the time is right to hand over to the iraqi people once again. (my goal is ultimately the same as yours)


Well, AL-FAMOUS, I've answered your question. What exactly did you mean about hitting them hard and where it hurts?

you did answer my question and thanks for doing it,

i ment that i would hit them hard in fallujah (the terrorist strong hold being there) and like i say... eye for an eye... thats the only way they can possibly learn that its not ok to butcher innocent people for nothing (and please dont try to make out thats what we are doing.)
and where it hurts is by doing the same to there loved ones and there fellow terrorists...

when you reply, just remember we are on the same side and what we want is the same (a peaceful world and a harmonious place for all)(man thats corny)

[Brize]

Not to burst your bubble... but do you realize that the US and UK are for the most part the backbone of the UN. So... for example. If the US pulls it's troops from Iraq... That leaves. Well... Not too many troops.

That's incorrect. The five permanant members of the UN security council are the US, UK, China, France and Russia. Number of troops breakdown as follows:

US: 1.38m
UK: 212.5k
China: 2.5m
France: 300k
Russia: 1m

As you will note, the military capability of China and Russia combined dwarf those of the US and UK. With this in mind, I've not even bothered to include figures for the other ten members of the current security council.

We have already transfered sovereignty to Iraq. They are in complete control of their own country.

That is patently untrue. Iraq is being governed by the US through a puppet administration. Further, the Iraqi economy is in the hands of US banks and multinationals, not the Iraqi administration or the Iraqi people. If Iraq was in control of its own economy, do you think it likely that the administration would be awarding construction contracts to US companies?

If they said leave... we'd leave.

If who said leave? The Prime Minister put in place by the US government? How likely is that? I think most of the Iraqi people have made their feelings clear on this issue.

[Brize]

well yes, but not a totally unfounded war.. to be honest the problem should have been "put to bed" in the nineties when you had a good president and we had a good prime-minister, they needed to take iraq apart at the seems then.

the whole wmd thing was an excuse, i cant say that for sure as im not "in the know" but its blatant for anyone to see.

Oh, that makes it alright then. We're just finishing a job that we should have finished a few years back, and never mind about a sound basis for going to war and killing thousands of US/UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the process.

the situation spiraled out of control because it wasnt dealt with properly in the first place.

The situation has spiralled out of control because the US and UK governments chose to act in defiance of the UN security council.

it is not our fault that the people of the arab world hate us.. (disclaimer: not all arabs ect ect not racist ect ect)

Not our fault? Are these people completely irrational or something? Might it have something to do with military bases in the middle-east, hundreds of thousands dead across the middle-east as a result of bombs and sanctions, an unfair bias towards Israel, etc?

people have been dying needlessly for decades in iraq and iran, iraqi government/dictatorship was and has been for a long time killing its own people.

Don't forget that it was the US who helped Saddam to gain power in the first place.

the current strats are not all failures, but i agree there needs to be a change, a new way of fighting terrorism, for is it is said if you live by the sword, you die by the sword

You also reap what you sow. I imagine we'll see a first-hand example of that at some point over the next few years.

do you think we are there just fighting and causing trouble... we are trying to stabilize a country that has been very volatile.

We're there because the area is of critical importance in terms of oil production. We're also there as some kind of misplaced revenge for 9/11, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with that atrocity. Iraq had been kept in check for a number of years prior to the invasion. This war has completely destabilised Iraq and the middle-east, and by extension, the rest of the world. Are you seriously suggesting that the world is a safer place since we went to war in Iraq?

yes our governments got that wrong, we didnt anticipate how hard it would be... however my only accusation would be that we didnt hit hard and fast enough. we needed more intel (instead of saying yep WERE COMING IN BOYS) we needed to rid the country of the pockets of extremists and terrorist warlords before trying to make the country safe and friendly..

Again, we needed to bide our time, abide by UN security council resolutions, and let the weapons inspectors finish their work.

our main mistake was for not doing the job properly (again) not for going in for the wrong reasons.. after all there are plenty more countries and terrorist organizations that need to be brought to there knees before the world we be a better place.

I couldn't agree more. The US and UK spring to mind immediately.

well if you think that it will be sorted out that way then i have to disagree (with respect)
withdrawing our troops now would leave a very very volatile situation, the very terrorists we are talking about WILL gain control of the country, not officially but they will control it in other ways,,,
we need to be there until the time is right to hand over to the iraqi people once again. (my goal is ultimately the same as yours)

Let's be honest here: could the situation really get any worse? The withdrawal of US and UK troops would send a positive message to the Iraqi people. UN peacekeepers would have a different mandate and would hopefully be a little more welcome. Most importantly though, resolving this issue through the UN would bring the US and UK back out of the cold and allow the international community to assist in the restructuring of Iraq.



i ment that i would hit them hard in fallujah (the terrorist strong hold being there) and like i say... eye for an eye... thats the only way they can possibly learn that its not ok to butcher innocent people for nothing (and please dont try to make out thats what we are doing.)
and where it hurts is by doing the same to there loved ones and there fellow terrorists...

What are we doing if not butchering innocent people as a by-product of this war? One westerner dies and it's a tragedy; 10,000 die in Afghanistan and Iraq since these wars began and it's collateral damage. If you could explain why some lives have more value than others, I'd be most grateful.

when you reply, just remember we are on the same side and what we want is the same (a peaceful world and a harmonious place for all)(man thats corny)

Corny, maybe, but the sentiment's spot on. Bombs and guns don't make the world a safer place in an age of terrorism. Even Bush has admitted that terrorism can't be defeated. An eye for an eye? That's all well and good, but by that circular logic, where does it end?

[blackfox]

First of all, my thoughts go out to his family and friends. It is a terrible tragedy.

As for the negotiation with terrorists, the US hostages in Iran in the late 70's and those in Lebanon in the mid 80's are probably quite thankful that there was some.

Although these situations invoke an emotional response, it is important to remember that diplomacy is often still a viable option. Although not always.

The important thing is to keep your options open. Such a flexible threat requires an equally flexible strategy for dealing with it.

[wdlove]

My prayers go out to his family and friends. Also to the citizens of England. May he rest in peace. This is just another sad example of what type of people we are dealing with in this global war on terror. We must win or perish.

[Gyroscope]

Althought every loss of human life is regretable, just imagine how many Iraqi people have died so far as a direct/indirect consequence of illegal* US & UK invasion on their country. What I find hard to understand is how it is possible that there are so many Al-Famous'es in da west who are completely missing the picture of what is going on in Iraq and in the Middle East.


*not endorsed by UN.

[Gyroscope]

My prayers go out to his family and friends. Also to the citizens of England. May he rest in peace. This is just another sad example of what type of people we are dealing with in this global war on terror. We must win or perish.


I don't want to fight the war and/or perish in it. I would like to live in a world of peace. To try to reach out with dialogue instead of bullet.Your cowboy mentality sickens me.

My condolances to Bigley's family.

[Rohan Moore]

AL-FAMOUS, clearly, you are entirely confident and relaxed in the assumption that the US and British occupy the moral high ground in this issue. You feel the war was not totally unfounded, nor that Bush Snr's war in 1991 was totally unfounded, despite admitting that the reasons given for the more recent war were "an excuse". You're also quite relaxed about your understanding that "it is not our fault that the people of the arab world hate us". You also feel that "people have been dying needlessly for decades in iraq and iran, iraqi government/dictatorship was and has been for a long time killing its own people".

What frightens the living hell out of me is that you're prepared promote extreme brutality on the back of this disinformation. Underpinning such reckless misjudgement with the age-old misphilosophy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" does little to sanitise what translates to a policy of legitimating mass murder.

The policy underlying both wars in Iraq is incredibly complex, and is entrenched in a handful of major powers' self-interests. It is not understandable as a mundane oil field grab, but it is still less understandable in terms of the propagandistic framework set out around the WMD issue: this much we clearly agree upon. But having agreed that the UK Government deployed "an excuse" to undertake this war, what are the grounds on which you think the action -was- justified, and why if such justification is stable was the UKG unprepared to declare it?

Iraq is a comparatively new country, created by Britain. The vast majority of the Arab world has a similar history, with puppet leaders propped up to govern Saudi, Jordon, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and more. These are long-term puppets of Hashemite or other Sunni origin paid handsomely by Britain and America to keep their populations largely out of the oil wealth. These British & American supported 'Royal Families' live in lavish luxury, have British and US education and corporate interests while the majority of their populations live on less than $1 per day. When JR struck oil in Dallas, he was a millionnaire overnight; when a Saudi strikes oil in his smallholding, he gets back to herding goats while Exxon Mobil's share price edges up a few cents.

The only way the impoverished Arab masses have been encouraged to take action in their own political interests is through the framework of Islam. Think of Islam as the counterpart to US and British mass media propaganda: it's merely the framework through which public opinion and confidence in a political idea is galvanised. The objectives of 'the terrorists' (which Blair and Bush relentlessly say are merely 'religious fanatacism' and 'hatred of freedom') are in fact purely political: they relate to the flagrant domination of the entire Muslim world by the West for over 100 years, ousting Palestinians from their lands, and propping up wealthy tyrants to rob the people blind of valuable natural resources in order to secure Western profit.

The biggest threat to this new-style, affordable imperialism of colonising foreign resources by using economic might to prop up dictators (a consistent and highly successful CIA tactic since WWII - read any history of Latin America) was the Iranian Revolution. When the Shia muslims gained control of their own country, the Western powers were terrified that the Shia majorities in the other Arab states would follow suit, and rise up against the Western-supported Sunni puppets. Naturally, uprisings in Saudi were the biggest concern - but similar uprisings in Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE etc. collectively would have been a material threat to US and Euro oil corporations' monopolies in the region. Iraq sits between Iran and Saudi, and was headed by this brutal secularist, Saddam Hussein... if anyone could stop the Shia revolution spreading, it would be him. So collectively, the US particularly strove to make Saddam stronger through the 1980s - arming him with bio-chem weapons, and ignoring or even encouraging the hiding of the mass Shia murders that we secretly welcomed, but more recently used to justify our toppling of our previous friend and ally. As for the massacre of the Marsh Arabs, well - as the Marsh Arabs occupied the most furtile area of Iraq, the relocation of the Iraqi agricultural industry to Khurds after the Marsh Arabs massacre led to enormous US agro-business exports to furtilise the less suitable land in the north. The financial press was particularly impressed.

Further concerns over the stability of the region for our continued profit, at the Arab people's expense, drove the invasion in 1991. Growing concerns that the US military presence in the region was insufficient, and failures to convince the puppets to allow the establishment of further bases in Saudi and its neighbours laid the ground for the invasion of Iraq. You say Bush Snr should have done the job properly: well, he did. Being unsatisfied with mere economic domination of the region, his objective was to augment his military presence to secure it, and this is how he did so.

After 8 or so years of war against Iran, encouraged by promise of long-term support by the superpower, Iraq was economically crippled and had to manage its oil trading prices more responsibly. Kuwait took advantage of the opporunity to send Iraq into spiralling economic decline by progressively undercutting it on its most lucrative oil export contracts. The effect was growing unemployment and unprecedented recession - effects that Kuwait was quick to further profit from, by importing hordes of unemployed Iraqis for effective slave labour to drive the now booming oil industry. The prostitution industry also hit a honeymoon period in Kuwait, with cheap Iraqi immigrant women and children.

Saddam's response was to draw the line on the Kuwaitis (whose human rights record was one of the few in the region even worse than his own), and ask the US foreign office if they would support him in an attack against Kuwait. The US foreign office declined, but in the same statement confirmed that "any action Iraq wishes to take in its resolution of relations with Kuwait is in the view of the US an issue entirely internal to the Iraqi administration." This translated to a carte blanche for Saddam to solve his country's dillemma of spiralling decline with military force. Of course, the clever move by the US foreign office that escaped Saddam's better judgement was that the move into Kuwait served as the perfect opportunity for US to galvanise support both by its puppets in the region, and by the UN, to increase its military presence with more than 700 new air and infantry bases. Suffice to say, the US reneged on Saddam, and invaded Iraq with a powerful alliance.

Of course, the US taxpayer could not afford (and still can't now) to finance a remote colony whose infrastructure was in tatters after relentless bombing. And given that it had taken around 70 years or more to find a brutal enough leader to hold the disparate peoples of British-made Iraq together, the most astute solution was to leave Saddam in control, and manage him (with sanctions, no-fly zones etc.). This was largely successful through the presidential terms that followed.

George W. Bush's administration decided to take the venture one step further, perhaps just because they could: the history provided a context in which, with enough propaganda (including of course the laughable attempts to tie the Ba'athist régime in to the World Trade Centre attacks), the US could actually take over Iraq and implant a new, more suitable, robust, long-term pro-US administration there to replace Saddam, whose trust and alliance was of course destroyed after the '91 Kuwait debacle. I'm at a loss to understand how those commentators in this thread have perceived Iyad Allawi and his cohorts to represent Iraqi self-governance! Even the BBC's Profile of Allawi admits him to be a long-standing CIA operative, and most of his contemporaries are too. The elections in January will follow US monopolisation of local press, a strong propaganda campaign to drive opinion in support of their favoured delegate, and careful apportionment of constituencies, with a long-term policy of gerimandering, to provide whatever balance of Khurdish, Shia, Sunni and other power the US feel will best serve its objectives. If you want to see the blueprint of how the US exports 'democracy' without conceding control, again look to Latin America; Chile's a fine example now the National Security Archive can show you the gory details on White House headed paper signed by Nixon, Kissinger and the gang.

Doctors, teachers, solicitors aren't blowing themselves up because of a.) religious fanatacism, or b.) evil. The courage comes from the religion, but the policy comes from long-term political domination from foreign powers. Saddam cultivated the mass graves while he was our friend and ally, while the US turned tragedy into agro-business profit. We are Saddam's supporters, designers, puppeteers and profiteers of most neighbouring countries, and holders of the mandate to expel four million Palestinian people from their homes to make way for a first world remote allied nuclear power. For us to then invade Iraq at the cost of substantial civilian life, inspires the anger you've seen. You've seen people a bit like me, shouting at Western journalists for the American soldiers to go home. And you've seen people a bit like you, who in desperation see a way forward only in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Well, if you're suggesting playing by the latter, it's going to take an awful lot more 9/11s before the Arab world have taken enough eyes and teeth to catch up with our record.

[Gyroscope]

Rohan Moore I applaud to you for this one mate.

'Nuff Said

[hcuar]

*not endorsed by UN.

The US nor Britain require endorsement to utilize their military. Being UN endorsed does not imply any sort of legality. The allies in the Iraq war upheld the UN resolutions that were being broken by Saddam and his government. If everything was above board, why not comply with the UN resolutions? :rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

snipped for length...

Wow. I was just an observer in this thread, reading what everyone had to say, and was not planning on getting into these same discussions that always seem to arise (not saying they're unimportant of course). But your post compelled me to post and complement you on it - very well put and especially from a newbie - usually I give you guys such a hard time, but you did a good job on this one... ;) :cool:

[BakedBeans]

well rohan, i have just read that, and i will reply in full later (as i have some points to add) but its 8am here... ive just got up and at the moment dont care about iraq just about getting some cheerios inside me, i will care after that, just before i go... i dont want to fall out with people about this as that is the terrorists aim... total disruption and once we start fighting with each other (at what ever level) they have succeeded...

[Rohan Moore]

The US nor Britain require endorsement to utilize their military.

Sadly, this has proved to be true. Of course, after WWI the international community tried to solve the problem of powerful nations with imperial ambitions undertaking military campaign unilaterally. The League Of Nations was left in tatters though when Germany achieved enough power to decide it had rights to Poland regardless of international consensus. The 'War To End All Wars' then led to WWII. After WWII, the international community was more motivated than ever to secure long term peace, and the UN Charter was drawn up, with member states agreeing to delegate their freedom to undertake military action to two circumstances: 1.) in immediate response to invasion; or 2.) when the UN Security Council voted for war. Never has a Security Council-sanctioned war followed a Resolution like 1441, threatening merely "serious consequences": it is encumbent upon the Security Council to explicitly convene and resolve to authorise War.

Sadly, we're back to where we were in 1939, and the United Nations hangs in the same tatters as the League Of Nations: the US is powerful enough to make compliance with international law simply a question of policy. As Madeleine Albright said, "We will act multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when US interests are at stake." US interests in this context cover just about everything. With a 'defence' (now simply a euphamism) budget larger than the next 10 largest countries' defence budgets put together, the US has been able to use international law as a means to dominate its subjects, without having to be subject itself. As for Britain 'not requiring endorsement to utilise its military', well, again, if it's following a US sojourn from international law, you're sadly right.

[wowser]

This particular group of hostage-takers is not organised by an Iraqi, but a Jordanian... somebody who is relying on the chaos over there to do their thing.

exactly. there is no point trying to romanticize these hostage situations. This guy only cares about his own persoanl noterity and power.