Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

We know why Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. The USA had been attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, whose leader, Osama bin Laden, was being permitted to train terrorists in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. But what did Iraq have to do with the ‘War on Terror’? Saddam Hussein was no friend of al-Qaeda.

One theory is that George W. Bush wanted to get his revenge on Saddam because he had “tried to kill my daddy” in Kuwait in 1993. But was that really the reason to start a war? Wouldn’t an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein have been a simpler solution?
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

We were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We know he used chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians and that he pursued an extensive biological weapons programme. The United Nations did locate and destroy large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi co-operation and obstruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In her book’ The Shock Doctrine’ (p.313), Naomi Klein offers us another explanation: “Saddam did not pose a threat to US security, but he did pose a threat to US energy companies, since he had recently signed contracts with a Russian oil giant and was in negotiations with France’s Total, leaving US and British firms with nothing; the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world were slipping out of the Anglo-American grasp. Saddam’s removal from power opened vistas of opportunities for the oil giants, including Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.”

Klein continues (p.348) that after Iraq had been occupied “there was not a single governmental function that was considered so ‘core’ that it could not be handed to a contractor, preferably one who provided the Republican Party with financial contributions or Christian foot soldiers during election campaigns. The usual Bush motto governed all aspects of the foreign forces’ involvement in Iraq: if a task could be performed by a private entity, it must be.” Klein concludes (p.359) that “like Russia’s gangsterism and Bush’s cronyism, contemporary Iraq is a creation of the fifty-year crusade to privatise the world.” That “crusade” stemmed from the Chicago School under Milton Friedman, which aimed to dismantle the welfare statism started by Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s and copied by many other countries, including the UK. And it’s a crusade which the despicable Tory-led government in the UK has been pursuing relentlessly since it came to power in 2010.

So why was Iraq invaded? Was it revenge for the attempt to kill George Bush Senior? Or was it part of the ‘War on Terror’, which Klein (p.301) says is unwinnable from a military perspective but unbeatable economically?

avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down


Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:33 pm

"And the stuff about history proving Blair to be correct is just supposition based on hope with no evidence to back it up.."

Ah well Dan you have your view and I mine. We shall see no doubt in time the the proof either way.

Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:46 pm

Mel wrote:"And the stuff about history proving Blair to be correct is just supposition based on hope with no evidence to back it up.."

Ah well Dan you have your view and I mine. We shall see no doubt in time the the proof either way.
Well Mel, you could easily refute my claim by posting some reliable evidence Wink
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:47 pm

Of course Dan, although your "claim" also does not constitute final proof that there were no WOMD.

We could go on forever on this one and never agree. Therefore as gentlemen, may I suggest we agree to disagree on this one? Having said that the following article is interesting if you feel you wish to bother to read it Dan.

Nizar Nayouf, an award-winning Syrian journalist who was granted political asylum in France, said in a letter to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf not only that he knew Iraq’s WMDs were being hidden inside Syria, but that he could pinpoint precisely where they were being kept. According to Nayouf’s witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years, Iraq’s WMDs were in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of the city of Homs. Nayouf claimed that the transfer of Iraqi WMDs to Syria was organized by the commanders of Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard with the help of General Dhu al-Himma Shalish and Assef Shawkat, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s cousin and brother-in-law, respectively.

Read more www.policymic.com


Last edited by Mel on Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : adding furtjher info)
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:05 am

I appreciate people have made that claim and similar ones, Sam. People say lots of things to sell books, make a name for themselves as journalists etc. Without the weapons being discovered though, it's just another internet rumour. What I would say though is that it would require a huge operation to have taken place at a time when Iraq was being extremely closely monitored by the USA. Perhaps they were in on it too?
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:55 am

Ok "Sam"?
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:58 am

Opinions are two-a-penny. Everybody has one.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:08 am

Mel wrote:Ok "Sam"?
Sorry, Mel. I think I'd just read "Sam Hunter" was browsing and had the name in my head. My mistake.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Sam Hunter on Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:54 am

Nice to be thought of... even if it is mistakenly. Smile 
avatar
Sam Hunter

Posts : 47
Join date : 2013-10-12
Age : 44
Location : The edge of Cheltenham

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:10 am

"Sorry, Mel. " No problem Dan. No doubt your mind was so set on you countering my claim that you forgot who you were writing to. Laughing Rolling Eyes 
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by bobby on Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:32 pm

Dan Fante said:
 What I would say though is that it would require a huge operation to have taken place at a time when Iraq was being extremely closely monitored by the USA.

Whilst opperations where ongoing in Iraq as I recall, special forces where having problems finding the Scud Missile sites, Scud missiles and the parephanalia that goes with them are great big things, yet I repeat could not all be found in the vastness of the desert despite ". being extremely closely monitored by the USA" The weapons of mass destruction that where in question where Chemical and biological weapons, both of which could be concealed in a small van. Nuclear weapons will leave a visible radioactive footprint so could be traced whereas if a footprint where to be left by the weapons we are discussing would mean damage and a leakage has occured and many people on both sides in the region would have died, my point being that ammounts of both Chemical and biological weapons can be moved simply and invisibly to prying eyes.
You have asked for tangible evidence from Mel re his information from his military friend, but where is your evidence to prove there wasn't any of the aforesaid nasties. We know as a matter of record he had WOMD prior to the war and months went by between his use of them on his own people and finaly allowing the weapons inspectors limmited access, he had loads of time to stick them in the back of a Transit and take them anywhere he chose.
avatar
bobby

Posts : 1939
Join date : 2011-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:56 pm

bobby wrote:Dan Fante said:
 What I would say though is that it would require a huge operation to have taken place at a time when Iraq was being extremely closely monitored by the USA.

Whilst opperations where ongoing in Iraq as I recall, special forces where having problems finding the Scud Missile sites, Scud missiles and the parephanalia that goes with them are great big things, yet I repeat could not all be found in the vastness of the desert despite ". being extremely closely monitored by the USA" The weapons of mass destruction that where in question where Chemical and biological weapons, both of which could be concealed in a small van. Nuclear weapons will leave a visible radioactive footprint so could be traced whereas if a footprint where to be left by the weapons we are discussing would mean damage and a leakage has occured and many people on both sides in the region would have died, my point being that ammounts of both Chemical and biological weapons can be moved simply and invisibly to prying eyes.
You have asked for tangible evidence from Mel re his information from his military friend, but where is your evidence to prove there wasn't any of the aforesaid nasties. We know as a matter of record he had WOMD prior to the war and months went by between his use of them on his own people and finaly allowing the weapons inspectors limmited access, he had loads of time to stick them in the back of a Transit and take them anywhere he chose.
I meant to move the entire arsenal Bobby and I stand by what I said. Mel made a claim and I asked for evidence. None was forthcoming. For a variety of reasons, moving them to Syria in the time frame we're talking about was illogical. What is even more illogical though (inconceivable to my mind) is that the UK and USA intelligence would not only know about these weapons being moved to Syria but they would also suppress this information, even though it would justify their going to war in the first place at a time when public opinion was moving strongly against the war. Perhaps you could explain that.
As for your request, i.e. "where is your evidence to prove there wasn't any of the aforesaid nasties" I haven't actually said they were never in existence. Even if they didn't exist though, how could I possibly prove that? It's not possible to prove a negative. If I were to state that aliens live on Pluto and control us using telepathy, you would probably require some evidence. Would it be reasonable for me to then turn around and say the onus is on you to disprove what I have said? Obviously that is an absurd and extreme example but it illustrates my point.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:33 pm

Dan. "Mel made a claim and I asked for evidence. None was forthcoming."

You made a claim that there were no WOMD. Perhaps what you should have said was that no WOMD were found. You asked for evidence which WAS forthconing in my post offering this link--www.policymic.com.

You simply chose to brush that off with a poor excuse that "People say lots of things to sell books"
bobby has made very valid points on the subject and again you brush his thoughts as "illogical"

You crave explanations and when received you poo poo them every time.
The word contrary comes immediately to mind.Rolling Eyes 
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:24 am

Mel wrote:
You made a claim that there were no WOMD.
Mel, where did I claim there were no WMDs or that Saddam never had them?
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:12 am

Splitting hairs Dan?
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:58 am

Mel wrote:Splitting hairs Dan?
I'm not splitting hairs at all.Mel, either quote where I have said what you claimed or admit I didn't please. It would be silly to suggest that at no stage did Saddam have these weapons since it was shown, pretty unequivocally, that he had used them in the past. Whether he still possessed the weapons in 2001 and if they were still in a state which meant they could be effectively deployed as weapons (within the 45 minutes claimed by Bush and Blair or otherwise) is far more contentious.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:30 am

Dan, in any case, if you were PM (GOD FORBID:D) and relied upon British and American and no doubt other intelligence personel. Your political opposition were in favour of your decision to go to war with Iraq. The terror threat revealed to all by the 911 horror along with the consistant refusal by Saddam to comply with many sections ruling demands put to him over a long period of time. Knowing for fact that he had had WOMD and finally the intelligence statement that he could deploy these weapons within 40mins is more than enough to suggest that you as a PM would have acted as Blair did for the safety of his people.

Had he not acted as he did and the weapons were deployed as suggested by the intelligence report, he would have been castigated by all and sundry.

Montgomery refused to listen to Major General Strong (Chief of Intelligence SHAFF), during WW11 when Strong suggested that Operation Market Garden should be "delayed" due to the fact(as it turned out) that the Nineth and Tenth Panzer divisions were waiting at Arnhem.
Monty refused to accept the claim and the whole thing was a disaster, claiming many lives of our Commando force and others.

Surely one must act upon intelligence, otherwise what is their purpose?
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:45 am

The 45 minute claim which was central to call to arms prior to the Parliamentary vote was highly contentious though, Mel. If it wasn't, why did Dr. David Kelly have such a problem with it? Also, if the evidence from the intelligence was as cast iron as you suggest, why did the US government at that time get the CIA to try and find information to smear Hans Blix in order to undermine him?(http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/34684.html).
It is my belief that the evidence was being made to fit policy and not the other way around. Blair may have been guilty of naivety or he may have felt he would forever be associated with a glorious crusade against a worthy enemy. Either way, I find it difficult to believe that Bush, Rumsfeld et al were doing what they thought was right rather than acting in what they thought were the best interests of their cronies in the weapons, construction and oil industries.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:02 pm

"Oil industries" were undoubtably in the equasion Dan, as our learned friend OW has recently highlighted.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:05 pm

There are innumerable unshakeable instances of the US acting directly in its own interests.

Quelle surprise!  We'd never do that.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:36 pm

oftenwrong wrote:There are innumerable unshakeable instances of the US acting directly in its own interests.

Quelle surprise!  We'd never do that.
I don't think anyone was saying that the US are unique in that regard, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I would imagine the noble Tony Blair might have had some thoughts in the back of his mind about what he and Britain could get out of the war. It's just a shame that an absolute huge defence bill and a load of dead bodies was all we got out of it.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Mel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:37 pm

"It's just a shame that an absolute huge defence bill and a load of dead bodies was all we got out of it.."

And some peace of mind that the world and our people were safeguarded and rid of a dangerous evil dictator.
avatar
Mel

Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Dan Fante on Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Mel wrote:"It's just a shame that an absolute huge defence bill and a load of dead bodies was all we got out of it.."

And some peace of mind that the world and our people were safeguarded and rid of a dangerous evil dictator.
The threat and occurrence of terrorist attacks worldwide increased exponentially after the invasion. If the war set out to make the world a safer place then it was a catastrophic failure.
avatar
Dan Fante

Posts : 928
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : The Toon

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:45 pm

I've just experienced a rush of Déjà vu.
My late Mother-in-law always insisted upon having the last word, may she rest in peace.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:55 pm

'PHILADELPHIA – Is the reported willingness of Arab Gulf states to fund a U.S. military campaign in Syria really about major oil and gas interests that run through the country?

The potential for trillions of dollars of energy revenue in deals that snake through Syrian territory may be a motivating factor for the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Arab states in the current Syria crisis.

Syria is a key energy transit route to Europe. A number of countries appear to be seeking dominance of the energy market that runs through Syria.

In a hearing earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry said Arab counties have offered to pay for any U.S. military intervention in Syria.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/is-this-what-syria-war-really-about
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:58 pm

' Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:01 pm

'As we asked (rhetorically, of course) and answered over 3 months ago, why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around a pipeline.

Here are some additional perspectives.

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.

[ZH: And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?] Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.

On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.

Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.'

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:05 pm

Globalization is a game played well only by a few, while most of us see nothing of the puppeteers who are pulling our strings


Last edited by methought on Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:06 pm

Yeah, they all look the same, don't they methought? Iraq, Iran, Syria - but who's counting?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:08 pm

Plus ca change - nothing changes.................... the wars in Afghanistan were just the same...............

And as always it is the civilians who suffer
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by methought on Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:13 pm

What would a Labour government do differently?

Obama has stopped the slide for now. Who though will benefit from this change in the dynamics? Is there a difference between good men and bad or is each leader just looking after the interests of his own?



Interesting times.......................
avatar
methought

Posts : 173
Join date : 2012-09-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Ivan on Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:52 pm

avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7175
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by boatlady on Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:19 am

For a man who has been so often right, and whose character is so pleasant, Mr Corbyn is strangely unpopular - this seems to shed an unflattering light on the way our society currently functions - merely speaking the truth and having strong principles is enough to make a person a public enemy
avatar
boatlady
Administrator (Global Moderator)

Posts : 3792
Join date : 2012-08-24
Location : Norfolk

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:14 am

boatlady wrote:For a man who has been so often right, and whose character is so pleasant, Mr Corbyn is strangely unpopular

Specifically "Unpopular in certain quarters".  The powers-that-be recognise in Mr Corbyn a serious threat to their preferred way of doing things.  If true Socialism as represented by Jeremy were to find favour with the voting public, a lot of cosy relationships with big business and foreign interests would come under the political microscope.

Those with the most to lose have been actively trying to stifle any such threat ever since the general election of 2015, and will continue to do so until the public realise where their interests really lay.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11916
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: What was the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really about?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum