View Poll Results: Do we support USA in Iraq or Sort out Mugabe in Zimbabwe
Yes support USA
15
11.72%
No Sort out Mugabe
113
88.28%
Voters: 128. This poll is closed
IRAQ or ZIMBABWE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not particularly bothered about the Nuclear deterrent being in the hands of 2 Jags. He's already shown he is "Well up 4 the ruck " Frankly, I think he has a damn sight more about him, than Bluppet.
Beags, I did watch Dubya last night, and to put it in the "Ground Scum" vernacular , "The bottle's gone". As regards someone better to run the place? Maybe if they had counted all the votes properly, and the Supreme Court hadn't all have been Republicans, then we might be looking at a series of surgical strikes against TERRORISTS worldwide, as per the Clinton administration.
I think Dubya, is facing mounting opposition at home, against an Iraq attack. The American people want revenge for 9/11, and they are starting to realise, that Dubya is talking bollix. Maybe they are having a hard time fabricating the evidence of Iraqi duplicity?
Now, we've gone from "We're coming to change the regime" to "We haven't decided what to do yet" and Bluppet (Pull my strings and watch me dance) has gone strangely schtumm.
As the unscrupulous one said on 5 Live last night, to paraphrase "Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, motives are suspect"
Beags, I did watch Dubya last night, and to put it in the "Ground Scum" vernacular , "The bottle's gone". As regards someone better to run the place? Maybe if they had counted all the votes properly, and the Supreme Court hadn't all have been Republicans, then we might be looking at a series of surgical strikes against TERRORISTS worldwide, as per the Clinton administration.
I think Dubya, is facing mounting opposition at home, against an Iraq attack. The American people want revenge for 9/11, and they are starting to realise, that Dubya is talking bollix. Maybe they are having a hard time fabricating the evidence of Iraqi duplicity?
Now, we've gone from "We're coming to change the regime" to "We haven't decided what to do yet" and Bluppet (Pull my strings and watch me dance) has gone strangely schtumm.
As the unscrupulous one said on 5 Live last night, to paraphrase "Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, motives are suspect"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US admits plan to bring down Mugabe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/a...778557,00.html
Looks like we'll be able to have our cake and eat it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/a...778557,00.html
Looks like we'll be able to have our cake and eat it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Influence
Chaps,
There have been some remarkable contributions to this thread from SoloTk, I M Esperto, Beagle to name but a few and some pretty daft ones from A Civilian. Long may the remarkable one continue. Perhaps these forums are read by those with journalistic influence. I note this mornings piece on the Today programme BBC Radio 4. I hope the TV people will pick up on this too with intellectual contributions from important politco's, so that rules Dubbya out then.
FEBA (Fwd Edge Battle Area)
There have been some remarkable contributions to this thread from SoloTk, I M Esperto, Beagle to name but a few and some pretty daft ones from A Civilian. Long may the remarkable one continue. Perhaps these forums are read by those with journalistic influence. I note this mornings piece on the Today programme BBC Radio 4. I hope the TV people will pick up on this too with intellectual contributions from important politco's, so that rules Dubbya out then.
FEBA (Fwd Edge Battle Area)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for popping in to your mil forum guys, hope you'll bear with me for a minute.
The reason behind the plans to knock over Saddam is very simple really, and does involve Saudi. As we all know, the US is terribly dependant on Saudi Oil. At the same time, the US is also terribly aware that muslim terrorism is largely financed by Saudi nationals, and they have a lot of moral support from Saudi's as well, some say it stems all the way from the top. But the US can't very well invade Saudi without having a alternate source of oil can they? Enter Iraq, a nation which is belived to hold the worlds second largest oil reserves.
In other words, the reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to install a US friendly government there and thereby secure the oil import. This will, to an extent, make Saudi redundant and thus open the possibility of either invading them outright or "just" imposing an embargo on them. I wonder how long the Saudi government, already shaken by a diminishing standard of living amongst average (i.e. non-royal) Saudis, will survive without oil export. Thus, if they are not allowed to export oil their society might break down. The nasty, but likely, outcome will be a quasi-Iranian state run under the Sharia law which no-one in this neck of the woods would like to see happening. It must be added, though, that the Saudi royal family have already place considerable power amongst the clergy, so presumeably the only difference (following a Iran-like revolution) might be that their hatred towards the west will be trumpeted by government officials rather than the clergy (which will be the same thing).
Are you willing to go to war to secure US oil imports, so that they can continue to pollute the world at an astounding rate ?
The reason behind the plans to knock over Saddam is very simple really, and does involve Saudi. As we all know, the US is terribly dependant on Saudi Oil. At the same time, the US is also terribly aware that muslim terrorism is largely financed by Saudi nationals, and they have a lot of moral support from Saudi's as well, some say it stems all the way from the top. But the US can't very well invade Saudi without having a alternate source of oil can they? Enter Iraq, a nation which is belived to hold the worlds second largest oil reserves.
In other words, the reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to install a US friendly government there and thereby secure the oil import. This will, to an extent, make Saudi redundant and thus open the possibility of either invading them outright or "just" imposing an embargo on them. I wonder how long the Saudi government, already shaken by a diminishing standard of living amongst average (i.e. non-royal) Saudis, will survive without oil export. Thus, if they are not allowed to export oil their society might break down. The nasty, but likely, outcome will be a quasi-Iranian state run under the Sharia law which no-one in this neck of the woods would like to see happening. It must be added, though, that the Saudi royal family have already place considerable power amongst the clergy, so presumeably the only difference (following a Iran-like revolution) might be that their hatred towards the west will be trumpeted by government officials rather than the clergy (which will be the same thing).
Are you willing to go to war to secure US oil imports, so that they can continue to pollute the world at an astounding rate ?
The US expects and deserves our support (but not necessarily our unquestioning obedience) in the war against terrorism.
But not necessarily our support in actions of military adventurism motivated by US domestic considerations. If there's sufficient evidence, and if it can be done without further alienating the Arab world, then to take out Saddam seems a great idea.
Moreover, such support comes with a price tag, even between allies. An end to US protectionism and an end to US refusal to abide by international agreements (on Israel, on climate change, etc.) would certainly help the alliance look more balanced and mutually beneficial. The last poster's point about the US 'polluting the world' might seem very PC and very dramatic, but it's also absolutely true and vitally important. If the USA wants our support, it should do more to earn it and to address our concerns.
But not necessarily our support in actions of military adventurism motivated by US domestic considerations. If there's sufficient evidence, and if it can be done without further alienating the Arab world, then to take out Saddam seems a great idea.
Moreover, such support comes with a price tag, even between allies. An end to US protectionism and an end to US refusal to abide by international agreements (on Israel, on climate change, etc.) would certainly help the alliance look more balanced and mutually beneficial. The last poster's point about the US 'polluting the world' might seem very PC and very dramatic, but it's also absolutely true and vitally important. If the USA wants our support, it should do more to earn it and to address our concerns.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The over-simplistic (and often badly spelt!) posts here do not take the largest factor (IMHO) into consideration.
When we did the biz on GRANBY, we were working within a UN mandate. There was no mandate to roll up the Basra Highway and 'finish the job'. I'm not saying that was desirable, but we were operating within the rule of international - ie UN - law.
What we have now with all the Sabre-rattling from Dubya, and to a lesser extent, Bliar, is most definitely NOT with any UN, or indeed any other form of International backing. All very well for the US to try and police the world (well, at least any bits floating on oil), but to do so without a general mandate from the rest of the known world is to invite trouble.
Had we actually continued up the Basra Highway, we may well have found the Pan-Arab force on our right flank turning against us. Proceed against Iraq without the general support of most of the rest of the Arab world, and we will be inviting a shoeing of Pyrrhic proportions.
By the way - Butcher Bob? Yeah, take the t%$t out!
When we did the biz on GRANBY, we were working within a UN mandate. There was no mandate to roll up the Basra Highway and 'finish the job'. I'm not saying that was desirable, but we were operating within the rule of international - ie UN - law.
What we have now with all the Sabre-rattling from Dubya, and to a lesser extent, Bliar, is most definitely NOT with any UN, or indeed any other form of International backing. All very well for the US to try and police the world (well, at least any bits floating on oil), but to do so without a general mandate from the rest of the known world is to invite trouble.
Had we actually continued up the Basra Highway, we may well have found the Pan-Arab force on our right flank turning against us. Proceed against Iraq without the general support of most of the rest of the Arab world, and we will be inviting a shoeing of Pyrrhic proportions.
By the way - Butcher Bob? Yeah, take the t%$t out!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
President Tony was not willing to help out our own farmers, let alone someone elses, so not likely Zimbabwe.
As for Iraq, it depends how his ratings are and what the USA want us to do. If a long campaign and loss of British life will win the next election, then that is what he will do.
Sorry to be cynical, but his past record speaks for itself.
As for Iraq, it depends how his ratings are and what the USA want us to do. If a long campaign and loss of British life will win the next election, then that is what he will do.
Sorry to be cynical, but his past record speaks for itself.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four widely separate questions:
(1) Is there one person from among the many thousands in the UK (and elsewhere in the West) who demonstrated and campaigned so vigorously for the unseating of Ian’s Smith’s minority regime who’s now willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the people on the spot (ie, Smith et al) might just have had a better idea of how things would inevitably go for Zimbabwe under majority rule? (Just as it has in virtually every other country in Africa since independence was granted by the colonial rulers in the Fifties and Sixties?)
(2) Is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe that, given the electronic and other intel assets at their disposal, the Yanks don’t know exactly where Saddam Hussein is in ‘real time’ for at least part of every day? If you believe this to be true, is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe they could kill him (and most of his inner circle) with minimal if not no ‘collateral damage’ with one single missile or stealth bomber?
(3) Based upon your answer to Question (2), is there anyone out there who believes the talk about going to a large(or large-ish) scale war in Iraq isn’t mostly to do with providing a favourable business environment for certain US defence contractors and providors? - ie, a quick, ‘surgical’ missile strike or bombing raid would not provide an excuse to replace the current crop of weapons, (the ones quite recently built to replace those used in Afghanistan) and provide all the business a major deployment would entail.
(4) Is there anyone out there who thinks the US Government really wants to see a truly democratically-elected government in place in Iraq (or any other Arab country in the Middle East)? Any such government would, almost without doubt, be heavily Islamic a la Iran and violently opposed to the US and its policies. (See Algeria over the last few years and watch what’s happening in Turkey as I write.) This could be a slightly less cynical reason than the one I’ve given in Question 3 to explain why the Americans don’t want to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein ‘cheaply’ with a single bomb – they wouldn’t have a hundred thousand troops in place to ensure that the ‘democratic’ government they put in place isn’t one exactly to their liking. Add the quite serious wild card to this equation that who knows what will happen in Saudi Arabia when the King dies – a very real possibility over the next year or so. Should he die when the Americans have stirred up huge emotions among Muslims with an invasion of Iraq and you’ve got a really interesting situation brewing in the Middle East over the next year or so.
Should real democracies come to be put in place in Islamic countries, (ie, government that do what the majority of local people want – which is to eschew most of not all things Western), it will be very interesting to watch the US spin doctors in twelve months time telling the American people ‘what they really meant’ when everything goes totally pear-shaped for American interests in the Middle East.
(1) Is there one person from among the many thousands in the UK (and elsewhere in the West) who demonstrated and campaigned so vigorously for the unseating of Ian’s Smith’s minority regime who’s now willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the people on the spot (ie, Smith et al) might just have had a better idea of how things would inevitably go for Zimbabwe under majority rule? (Just as it has in virtually every other country in Africa since independence was granted by the colonial rulers in the Fifties and Sixties?)
(2) Is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe that, given the electronic and other intel assets at their disposal, the Yanks don’t know exactly where Saddam Hussein is in ‘real time’ for at least part of every day? If you believe this to be true, is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe they could kill him (and most of his inner circle) with minimal if not no ‘collateral damage’ with one single missile or stealth bomber?
(3) Based upon your answer to Question (2), is there anyone out there who believes the talk about going to a large(or large-ish) scale war in Iraq isn’t mostly to do with providing a favourable business environment for certain US defence contractors and providors? - ie, a quick, ‘surgical’ missile strike or bombing raid would not provide an excuse to replace the current crop of weapons, (the ones quite recently built to replace those used in Afghanistan) and provide all the business a major deployment would entail.
(4) Is there anyone out there who thinks the US Government really wants to see a truly democratically-elected government in place in Iraq (or any other Arab country in the Middle East)? Any such government would, almost without doubt, be heavily Islamic a la Iran and violently opposed to the US and its policies. (See Algeria over the last few years and watch what’s happening in Turkey as I write.) This could be a slightly less cynical reason than the one I’ve given in Question 3 to explain why the Americans don’t want to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein ‘cheaply’ with a single bomb – they wouldn’t have a hundred thousand troops in place to ensure that the ‘democratic’ government they put in place isn’t one exactly to their liking. Add the quite serious wild card to this equation that who knows what will happen in Saudi Arabia when the King dies – a very real possibility over the next year or so. Should he die when the Americans have stirred up huge emotions among Muslims with an invasion of Iraq and you’ve got a really interesting situation brewing in the Middle East over the next year or so.
Should real democracies come to be put in place in Islamic countries, (ie, government that do what the majority of local people want – which is to eschew most of not all things Western), it will be very interesting to watch the US spin doctors in twelve months time telling the American people ‘what they really meant’ when everything goes totally pear-shaped for American interests in the Middle East.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley - Good questions.
I think it's all about oil, and who controls it.
Certainly, we could take Sadaam out. But again, why should we? Sadaam has done nothing to the USA. Bush says Iraq and now Saudi Arabia are part of "The Axis of Evil". (Good grief!)
Here's some military wisdom from the past, that makes good sense to me, right now:
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the
expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes
overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other
reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out
enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-
three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the
Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military
profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba
a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see
to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I
could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents.
I think it's all about oil, and who controls it.
Certainly, we could take Sadaam out. But again, why should we? Sadaam has done nothing to the USA. Bush says Iraq and now Saudi Arabia are part of "The Axis of Evil". (Good grief!)
Here's some military wisdom from the past, that makes good sense to me, right now:
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the
expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes
overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other
reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out
enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-
three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the
Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military
profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba
a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see
to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I
could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few points
1 if mugabe and saddam are overthrown who replaces them? lets face it you know where you are with them.
2 would the royal navy be very interested in helping? after all zimbabwe is landlocked(the bera blockade was a total waste of time) and iraq has a very small coastline. only role i can see is for subs with tomahawks.
3 if it really is all about oil then iraq must be prority, imho i can forsee butcher bob and his hitler tache being overthrown within 6 months.
2 would the royal navy be very interested in helping? after all zimbabwe is landlocked(the bera blockade was a total waste of time) and iraq has a very small coastline. only role i can see is for subs with tomahawks.
3 if it really is all about oil then iraq must be prority, imho i can forsee butcher bob and his hitler tache being overthrown within 6 months.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley
Brilliantly well put. There aren't any cynics in your family, are there?!
I.M.Esperto
It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. If we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them, and it appears that we haven't learned anything from the wisdom of the good General from seventy odd years ago.
Once again it will be the guys in uniform who pay for this failure with life and limb, all the while believing it is in a good cause. Then again, if it helps to preserve our Western way of life and standard of living, maybe it is, and maybe the Profits of War are a separate issue. Is this an eternal conundrum, or yet another lesson not learned?
Iraq is certainly about oil and about the other issues that Wiley raises; but Zimbabwe has the potential to about something genuinely just. They are Our People down there. I think the West will come to their rescue, but probably not for the right reasons.
Zimbabwe is chocker block with minerals waiting to be mined, and the country will very soon need another industry to feed its people now that farming has been destroyed as a viable pursuit.
Once Sideshow Bob is dislodged from his perch, by stealth, infirmity, or someone even more corrupt than himself - and it could happen in as little as six months - the new nation will call for aid, which we will be only too happy to provide...we'll build roads, schools and hospitals, and give the Zimbabweans jobs in our mines. You know, our mines. They're our minerals, after all. Or at least they will be.
It's a neat system, don't you think?
Brilliantly well put. There aren't any cynics in your family, are there?!
I.M.Esperto
It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. If we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them, and it appears that we haven't learned anything from the wisdom of the good General from seventy odd years ago.
Once again it will be the guys in uniform who pay for this failure with life and limb, all the while believing it is in a good cause. Then again, if it helps to preserve our Western way of life and standard of living, maybe it is, and maybe the Profits of War are a separate issue. Is this an eternal conundrum, or yet another lesson not learned?
Iraq is certainly about oil and about the other issues that Wiley raises; but Zimbabwe has the potential to about something genuinely just. They are Our People down there. I think the West will come to their rescue, but probably not for the right reasons.
Zimbabwe is chocker block with minerals waiting to be mined, and the country will very soon need another industry to feed its people now that farming has been destroyed as a viable pursuit.
Once Sideshow Bob is dislodged from his perch, by stealth, infirmity, or someone even more corrupt than himself - and it could happen in as little as six months - the new nation will call for aid, which we will be only too happy to provide...we'll build roads, schools and hospitals, and give the Zimbabweans jobs in our mines. You know, our mines. They're our minerals, after all. Or at least they will be.
It's a neat system, don't you think?
Bluewolf
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree in full with BlueWolf’s last paragraphs.
Myself, I can’t believe ‘Sideshow’ Bob Mugabe hasn’t set his spin doctors to work piously telling the West that he’s really acting for the good of Western society by putting a stop to that awful, cancer-producing tobacco production, (a goodly portion of the ‘food’ produced by Zimbabwe’s white-run commercial farms), and is replacing tobacco with maize.
Myself, I can’t believe ‘Sideshow’ Bob Mugabe hasn’t set his spin doctors to work piously telling the West that he’s really acting for the good of Western society by putting a stop to that awful, cancer-producing tobacco production, (a goodly portion of the ‘food’ produced by Zimbabwe’s white-run commercial farms), and is replacing tobacco with maize.
Last edited by Wiley; 25th Aug 2002 at 13:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Latest in todays' Sunday Times, implies that Bluppet has been far from idle.
UKSF have been "scouting the borders".. read that as buying their coffee and fags in Harare. Also a major UK exercise appears planned in "Southern Africa" next month.
Lovely......
UKSF have been "scouting the borders".. read that as buying their coffee and fags in Harare. Also a major UK exercise appears planned in "Southern Africa" next month.
Lovely......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fifth question, to add to my earlier list, if I may: let’s say Saddam Hussein AND Sideshow Bob are both toppled exactly to Dubya/Tony’s plans and timetables, and it’s summer of 2003 and we have ‘more acceptable’ governments in place in both localities. (Let’s not dwell on the fact too long that to enjoy any chance of survival, any replacement government in either country will probably have to be even more despotic than the existing ones Tony and GW are so keen to replace.)
I think it would be fairly safe to say that a goodly number of the people currently wielding or enforcing power in both Iraq and Zim, (of whom there are a ‘goodly number’ in both countries), would not exactly be the flavour of the month with the new ‘Western friendly’ regimes.
Given that the new governments would have to be rather severe on political dissent to have any hope of survival, (see para 1), it might also be true to say that these said ex-wielders of power would have a genuine, (if some would say very well-deserved), fear of persecution under the new regimes.
So (at last) to my question: where will the West, (and in particular, the bleeding hearts in the ‘more traditional’ havens for political refugees from all corners of the Earth – the US, UK, Canada and Australia), stand on offering these hapless refugees safe havens from what will undoubtedly be well-founded fears of persecution?
I think it would be fairly safe to say that a goodly number of the people currently wielding or enforcing power in both Iraq and Zim, (of whom there are a ‘goodly number’ in both countries), would not exactly be the flavour of the month with the new ‘Western friendly’ regimes.
Given that the new governments would have to be rather severe on political dissent to have any hope of survival, (see para 1), it might also be true to say that these said ex-wielders of power would have a genuine, (if some would say very well-deserved), fear of persecution under the new regimes.
So (at last) to my question: where will the West, (and in particular, the bleeding hearts in the ‘more traditional’ havens for political refugees from all corners of the Earth – the US, UK, Canada and Australia), stand on offering these hapless refugees safe havens from what will undoubtedly be well-founded fears of persecution?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I've had it with these "hapless refugees" flooding the USA.
They are the criminal element today, and the culture clash makes them unassimable into the mainstream population. Case in point:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200208230066.html
They are the criminal element today, and the culture clash makes them unassimable into the mainstream population. Case in point:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200208230066.html
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley’s fifth question is as thought-provoking as his first four… I believe Australia has taken quite a few of the now disbanded South Lebanon Militia (the proxy army of local, mostly Christian Lebanese the Israelis set up during their stay in South Lebanon, who won no friends among the rest of their countrymen). I’ll bet that has made for some interesting conversations in the queue at that kebab shop in Lakemba (Sydney’s (not so) ‘little Beirut’).
I echo his implied sentiments re Mugabe’s and Saddam’s many thugs – I don’t want any of them in my country, and I daresay, nor do anyone else, including the North Koreans.
I echo his implied sentiments re Mugabe’s and Saddam’s many thugs – I don’t want any of them in my country, and I daresay, nor do anyone else, including the North Koreans.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity about the fate of Beirut.
I remember back in the 1950's it was great - The Paris of the Levant.
Some really gorgeous women were all over the place.
There was no "Green Line".
I remember back in the 1950's it was great - The Paris of the Levant.
Some really gorgeous women were all over the place.
There was no "Green Line".
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fundamental difference. of course, betweem Mugabe and Saddam is that Saddam has, so the latest intelligence tells us, the means to get his hands on Nukes. Taking the 'worst case scenario', then, Saddam just loads the thing (just one, that's all it needs) into a container, sets the timer, and sends it up the Thames on a cargo ship. Boom. End of London. And by then it will
all be too late.
At least all the pinko coke snorting media lefties won't be in any
position to whine about why we are attacking Iraq, as they will be all by then split down into their individual molecules and cruising in a low Earth orbit.
Incidentally, we in the west owe a debt of gratitude to the South African Defence forces (before apartheit collapsed) who, having produced some Nukes for themselves then made the extremely laudable decision to take them all apart again and bury the components down some extremely deep mineshafts where they could never be recovered, before the locals took over. They therefore effectively stopped the whole of the Southern part of Africa becoming a nuclear power.
Thanks, Van Der Merve, if you're reading this. I, for one, appreciate the magnanamous gesture.
all be too late.
At least all the pinko coke snorting media lefties won't be in any
position to whine about why we are attacking Iraq, as they will be all by then split down into their individual molecules and cruising in a low Earth orbit.
Incidentally, we in the west owe a debt of gratitude to the South African Defence forces (before apartheit collapsed) who, having produced some Nukes for themselves then made the extremely laudable decision to take them all apart again and bury the components down some extremely deep mineshafts where they could never be recovered, before the locals took over. They therefore effectively stopped the whole of the Southern part of Africa becoming a nuclear power.
Thanks, Van Der Merve, if you're reading this. I, for one, appreciate the magnanamous gesture.
Last edited by PercyDragon; 27th Aug 2002 at 17:06.