I completely disagree with your summary of the result of the Gulf wars.....Your idea that Iran is more powerful because of Iraq is misplaced. Blimey, the leadership in Iran have problems even shoring up their own terrible regime. What is true is that Iran lost an enemy, but this isn't the same as saying it's made them more powerful.....They're bloody skint for a start and losing Syria as an effective ally.....Iran still have many enemies in the Middle East.

Iraq for example voted against Iran over Syria, they are not Iran's puppet in any sense. Considering America will have a constant base in Iraq I view your opinions as typical of investing in ideas that have some truth in them and expanding them away from the reality on the ground. The truth is that Iraq has never been very pro-American (Israel) but that's migrated by the fact that future is now heavily invested with them.

The Gulf wars had a significant if indirect affect on the promotion of democracy in the middle east. This was something the neo cons were right about long ago and the left hate them even more about it (those that recognise it, which is about 30/70)....If indeed they could possibly hate their bogey men any more than they already do.

I don't claim that this indirect affect justifies the wars but I regard it as an element closer to the truth than any opposite claim. It's effect has been noted in the middle east.

Wars always have mixed results to a certain extent, much as you seem convinced that these wars as purely negative. I'm of the view that you as are blind to the actual long terms results of those wars.

They were always going to have a short term spike in deaths and instability. However the suggestion that the removal of the regime could have been any other way was unrealistic.

I've seen statistics on Saddam's rule that put the annual death toll from him at levels near post-war 'civil war' levels anyway. Well, the realistic ones.....The difference between Saddam and the war was eventually those numbers were going to vastly reduce.....Under Saddam he was horribly constant and effective with his secret service.

Now Iraq has no sanctions, selling oil and increasing its yield. Deaths are way down, economic activity far higher. Iraq now has the opportunity of actually becoming far richer still due to its oil....That oil that everyone said the West were stealing.

By no means is it ideal but the future is far brighter for Iraq than it was before.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Feb 2013 8.10pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I must admit this is a book I keep meaning to read.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding on this thread about what Assange has done. He is not a whistleblower - he is indescriminately leaking (or providing an outlet for leaking) confidential information, simply on the basis that he does not believe that anyone should know something he doesnt.

If some of the information does show illegal activity then of course it deserves to be exposed but his approach does far, far more harm than good, both to international security and to the concept of whistleblowing. If whistleblowing is considered simply the act of revealing anything which is secret, then it will never work and states will (quite rightly) make it harder for real whistleblowers to reveal things which do really matter.

Of course, we would all love to see every confidential memo that the foreign office sends out (actually you wouldnt, most are tedious in the extreme) but to allow it to happen is the route to anarchy.

Assange is a self-seeking, irresponsible anarchist. As I said earlier in the thread, I would warmly welcome his trial in the US or anywhere that will expose him as such.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

An excellent book by a proper journalist whose constant probing and chipping away over many years eventually brought News International's 'one rogue reporter' phone hacking defence crashing down and sent the Murdoch cockroaches scurrying from the light.

Oops wrong thread.

Edited by Mongo Like Clunge (28 Feb 2013 3.24pm)

WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Not really the same, as the exercise there is the theft for profit. Its no different than how every newspaper in the country operates (except for the stings and paying for stories). It strikes me that people who have an issue with wikileaks deflect away from the idea that it serves the public interest in an era where newsmedia companies have become very 'cosy' with government and the state.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]