Saturday, 23 September 2006 - 3:48 PM BST

I have a feeling that all of this is going to tie in with your Neo-Con views. Maybe what you are really trying to tell us is that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with oil but was about WMP or Saddaam being linked to 9/11.

You are right about the first half. The war had nothing to do with oil. The war was about securing Israel. Israel has always wanted to West to go to war in the Middle East. Now with America having a Zionistic lobby, it has finally happened. This has only been a breeding ground for terrorism. Before you say that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism on our shores maybe you should distinguish the terrorist from people who blow themselves up because they are totally brainwashed, and people who blow themselves up for territory because they are prisoners in their own land and see their families killed and homes destroyed, the Palestinians.

Discuss….

Saturday, 23 September 2006 - 4:16 PM BST

Richard, welcome back. Your ability to find references to Israel where none are intended is still working well I see. I'm struggling to see what possible relevance Israel has to the theory that world oil production is peaking, but there you go.

To answer your utterly irrelevant points -

The war was not for oil, as you say. If the US wanted to invade a country for its oil reserves, Mexico and Canada are far closer! Britain would have a fighting chance against Norway, I reckon. The war was however partly about what Iraq and other middle-eastern countries spend their oil revenues on. As Mahmood pointed out in a comment on this site some weeks ago, in 2003 the US was spending more on imports of electrical components from the Far East than it was on middle-eastern oil. The difference is that the Taiwanese don't use the proceeds of semi-conductor sales to finance terrorism and jihad. Saddam may not have co-operated with Al Qaeda on operational matters concerning the 9-11 atrocity, but he did give sanctuary to Abu Nidal (who bombed Rome airport) and the hijackers of the Achille Lauro [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas ]

At the end of the day, a war on terror is just that. It doesn't have to be solely concerned with 9-11.

As far as Israel's concerned, Iran was a more serious threat than Iraq. They had every right to be concerned about the latter however, given Saddam's decision to launch Scud missiles at Tel-Aviv during the first Gulf War, despite Israel taking no part in the coalition to liberate Kuwait.

As for distinguishing brainwashed terrorists from landless ones, I suggest you check out MEMRI and view some of the brainwashing material that goes out on Palestinian TV.

DY

Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - 11:38 AM BST

DAMN!

I've somehow deleted a bunch of comments concerning this topic. I tried moving them from other posts (re satellites) back down to this one and somehow ended up losing them all in the process. Sorry about this folks, it wasn't an attempt to censor.

To summarise -

A critic wrote in essentially mocking my lack of concern about the immediacy of oil running out. He stressed that US oil consumption would take about six years to consume all US reserves on a BEST case scenario. I talked about imports and he stressed that North Sea oil was declining year on year since 1999 (from memory).

Along the way there was some personal attack on me for being 'tubby' (actually I've lost a lot of weight recently) and for being stuck in the past with my concerns about demography.

Really sorry about losing the threads. I can't figure out why it took them all out when I was only trying to move them to a more relevant place.

DY

Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - 4:11 PM BST

Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - 6:54 PM BST

In due course I'll explain why the claim that Iraq has increased the terror threat is largely an illusion. Bush said:

"I think its naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offence against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe."

and that broadly does it for me. The Iraq war didn't make the 1993 bomb attack on the World Trade Centre attack happen. Nor did it inspire the attack on the USS Cole (2000), the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), the destruction of the Khobar Towers (1996), the Luxor massacre (1997) or the bomb attacks in Bali (the first of which was in 2002). Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was caught on a flight trying to ignite explosives in his shoes in 2001. British muslims went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

The Iraq war didn't take place until Spring 2003.

Of course the Iraq war makes Islamists angry. It represents a threat to them. Should Iraq become stable and democratic it would be a massive blow to them. They have stated this in writing themselves. But the fact that they are angered and have fought back doesn't mean that we started the problem.

It's always tempting to believe that something you've done is the cause of the problem. That way you only have to change course and the problem is over. It is a seductive thought, because it gives hope. You can change leaders in a democracy. You can demand change. So why not kid yourself that your actions are the problem, change the actions and cross your fingers that the war is ended?

It's much more unpleasant to accept the idea that your enemy won't stop attacking you until you kneel before Mecca.

DY

Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - 7:02 PM BST

Here is bin Laden telling muslims to kill Americans because of America's policy in Iraq.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm 

IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1998 - TWO YEARS BEFORE BUSH GOT THE JOB. FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ!

DY

Thursday, 28 September 2006 - 10:20 AM BST

Thursday, 28 September 2006 - 3:45 PM BST

And what's your conclusion on that then, given that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 2003 and that countries with no involvment in Iraq, such as Canada and Germany have been the target of unsuccessful plots? 

Why were Islamists still plotting attacks on Spain even after Spain withdrew from Iraq?

DY

Thursday, 28 September 2006 - 5:43 PM BST

Well, if your president is to be believed, he's foiled a number of attacks on the US since 2003. You're thinking very short term here.

I can see why as it suits your agenda. The next generation will have become radicalised by events in Iraq. So, we have at least 20 years of this to look forward to. All this when they had the bad guys on the run in Afghanistan before they chose to divert their resources to Iraq. What a missed opportunity that was. 

No one denies there are terrorists out there, but where we differ is the best way to handle them and the best way to prevent the further radicalisation of muslims. Bombing a muslim country back to the stone ages wouldn't have been my idea. Nor does practising torture or contravening the Geneva Convention. The moral highground has been lost, but to be honest, that's the least of our problems.  

 When Iraq becomes a theocracy you may think differently about all this.

Thursday, 28 September 2006 - 6:18 PM BST

Iraq's next generation radicalised? I don't think so.

See here

Opinion polls show that Al Qaeda is opposed by 94 per cent of Iraqis, with most having a very unfavourable opinion. Al Qaeda has comprehensively lost the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq.

DY

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 1:02 PM BST

Erm, Yes, I think so.

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion;_ylt=AroJF8Up7jt9HF_sYpUO5v4DW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

You have been wrong throughout about Iraq. I have rarely come across someone so pig headed when confronted by evidence which contradicts their world view. When are you going to take off the blinkers and admit that however noble the original inent, the implementation and the lack of planning have rendered the project a disaster?