Category: News and Views
ok, I'm sure it's been brought up before, but I'm just going to say that iraq is a mess, and we should have never gone there, it's there dam choice on how they want to live. I also hate the fact that Bush tries to connect the 9-11 event with iraq, they have nothing in common. In my opion, bush is the real reason we are at war, and he's the terrorist and he uses terrorism to hide the truth, that he wants to dominate the world. Oh and one more thing be prepaired for the us to go to hell under this man's watch. I wish some would just get rid of him personally. thanks, ray!
Now then, I'm not pro-bush by any means, but I do have to draw the liine at your view which I think has gone too far the other way. Firstly, I don't think that the Iraqis chose to live under Saddam Hussein's Baoth Party regime. As is the case in many states still influenced by traditional Islamic ways of seizing power, Saddam Hussein's regime was born out of a violent and bloody episode which was the culmination of Saddam literally killing his way to the top, reminiscent of historic rulers such as Suleimann The Magnificent, who ruled the Islamic Ottoman Empire from 1520 to 1566. to talk of choice in such matters is ludicrous. I do agree with Bush, and for that matter with our otherwise mendacious prime minister tony Blair, that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and I don't think that Bush is a terrorist, no more is Tony Blair. Indeed, I must say that I find it distasteful to compare Bush and Blair, however much we may disagree with them, with the suicide bombers killing British, American and australian troops today, or the vial fanatical scum who beheaded innocent hostages such as Britain's Ken Bigley; it is they who are terrorists. Surely, a much better way of justifying your view that we should never have gone to Iraq at all, is to say that we were misled. If you were to say that, I would agree with you there, 100 percent. The wicked fraud perpetrated by the prime minister and president of Britain and the USA respectively manifested itself in the sexed up dodgy dossier containing the infamous 45 minutes claim. We have since learnt that the intelligence received by the prime minister was frought with qualifications and cautionary statements, but the spin doctors believed this would not have a sufficient impact to win parliamentary support. My view, personally and upon knowing the full picture, is that we were right to go to war due to a breached United Nations resolution. however, the decision should have been taken in a proper manner, without fraudulently misrepresenting information to the public and to our respective parliaments. I think this is a more tenable position than the one you express in your opening remarks. finally, I agree that Mr Bush has no subtlety, and very little sense, in assimilating 9/11 with the Iraq issue, which he seems to do time and time again. I'm sorry to say that I expected better of the American electorate and wonder how on earth they have been taken in by an isolationist again, who has presided over a net loss of jobs, the first president to do so since Herbert Hoover, and who still stubbornly refuses to accept that america has responsibilities to the global environment and should sign up to the Kyoto protocol at once. Add this to the lack of understanding of the Iraq issue that he and his military commanders seem to have, and I rest my case.
100,00 Iraqi's in Fallujah are withouit food water sanitation baby food medicine and there is an outbreak of the inevitable typhoid..Sadly cholera and isn't far behind.
............................................................
Do the american's hope to starve the innocents in to submission? If as they claim Fallujah is secure then why on earth are the aid agencies being denied entry to help those most in need..Is this yet another vulgar abuse of power by the trigger happy yanks.
Two mistakes were made in the war on Iraq. 1. Though it is possible that the weapons of mass destruction were destroyed just before the war began or were
Smuggled out of Iraq, they shouldn't have been such an important factor in the decision of the coalition. The real reasons should have been that regimes which oppress all who disagree with their policies need to be overthrown one by one. It seems to me that Saddam Hussein could have continued to behave in the cruel manor he had previously if he complied with the UN and the West would have done nothing about it just like they haven’t done anything in Zimbabwe except offer them a cricket match in the case of England. The other mistake was not giving the Iraqis a greater role in the reconstruction of their country. If they were given the jobs that foreigners were given instead, they’d have fewer reasons to blow themselves up. I also think that border security wasn’t as strong as it could be and the coalition are paying for that mistake and have been since the war ended. I think that all oppressive regimes should be overthrown one by one and realise that this will take a long time, probably up to 50 years.
Okay, I have a few things to say in response to the last post of this discussion: first, regime change is not a sufficient reason for going to war, nor should it be. If that were the way then it might have meant declaring war on austria when the far right neo-fascist party was elected into government five years ago. It also would mean the total destabilisation of many parts of the world. also, how do you define a regime you don't like? was it right, for instance, for the Americans to invade Caribian islands that belong to the commonwealth twenty years ago so as to hault communism, contrary to the wishes of margaret Thatcher and Her Majesty the queen? Secondly, I agree with your sentiments on zimbabwe's troubles and it is a disgrace that this government has forgotten about Zimbabwe in the way that it has. Bear in mind, however, that England are not the only ones to have gone and played cricket in zimbabwe. australia toured there recently, remember. The fact is that England have to go to Zimbabwe or risk ruining the national game. The International cricket committee are a bunch of stupid arses who are too timid to grasp the bull by the horns and say to the Zimbabwe cricket union, 'Okay, sod off you racists and don't come back until you can select your teams properly and Mugabe is no longer in control of your cricket board'. They haven't done this, however, and we have no support from the international cricketing community. The England and Wales cricket board, you see, are therefore in an impossible position and have to go, and the rest of the world is as much to blame for that as we are. I won't spend any more time on the cricketing issue because that belongs in a separate discussion, but if you want to have it I'm quite happy to. finally, I'm not so sure that giving Iraqis control right now would stop the suicide bombers. People who indulge in such acts are, as Bush and Blair rightly say, fanatics with whom negotiation is not possible. I would advocate handing over power to localas as soon as possible though, and to a great degree this has already been done.
hmm, interesting views and opinions. Ok, I was wrong to say that Bush is a terrorist very wrong. I still feel that we should have never went or that the government or mainly the Bush admynistration, should have told the public the trut behind going to Iraq. Yes, Sidam may have been a threat to his people, but if this really bothered the US we that we have today then? would have done this a long time ago. Ok, the Golf war happened, but didn't we have the same teqnology
Yes, I certainly agree with you that people should have been told more about the reason for going to war, and I also agree that back in 1991, George Bush Senior was wrong to broker a deal between the coalition and Saddam in the way that he did. I regret to say that it was a Conservative prime minister, John Major, who assisted Bush in that. Mr Major was a grave disappointment after his predecessor, however, and I would stress that he was atypical of Conservative prime ministers. there wont, for instance, be any trouble with Michael Howard when he is elected next year.
I think of course that America was right to take measures in former British colonies to stop the spreading of communism, and it was in the interests of democracy. I don't think people in America would be so against the Vietnam War if America had been absolutely successful. I think that overthrowing brutal regimes is in the interest of the West also, because it will in the long term, reduce the amount of people seaking asylum in developed democracies.
the American people wouldnt have been so against vietnam if its army ect had learned about its enemy then they would have been better prepared to defeat the N.V.A but no america heard the dreaded word communist and dived in to a war with a ruthless enemy who has never been defeated.
And we see the same scenario in iraq these insurgents are seem to be growing in number and they are certainly far from beaten....If the massacre at Fallujah teaches these people anything it will be how to hate with utter conviction
............................................................
.Also where did the 200 escaped insurgents go when Fallujah was being razed to the ground straight towards the Black Watch!.
Well said, and I agree with most of what peole have said.
My biggest pproblem with the war wasn't necessarily that it started but the fact that Americans think they can take the world into their own hands and attack whoever is not complying oor sits on their resources, and then award the rebuilding contract to their own companies as a profit-boosting scheme .. then the politicians themselves even reap the benefits. This is the biggest misuse of military power I've ever heard of. If the United Nations had been given another 6 months I think this war would've been a lot better tolerated and got a lot more international support, it's possible it wouldn't have happened but even so that pre emptive strike concept is not good, especially when, as we found out, it was based on lies and misrpesented evidecne. And as for who is terrorist and who is not I'm at a loss to understand it. Is it any less sever act of terrorism to kill innocent ciliviasns using jets flying 3 times the speed of sound and 3000 pound bombs or a n armored vehicle with a gun that shoots 300 rounds a second than to blow yourself up. I think t's the number of innocent people you kill, not the method of the killing that is the issue. Both acts are unforgivable and horrible but just because someone kills him/herself in the process of killing civilians or military folks does not make the act that much more gruesome, it just gives the ability to kill a lot of people to more organizations with the right recruits. It may look as I am defending suicide attacks, I'm not, I'm just saying that the U.S. is as much of a terrorist as anyone else if the number of innocent people they kill matches that of the number of people the terrorists killed during their attack. At this point I do vote with the U.S. on the fact that Iraq has to be cleared of insurgents and the country given a real chance are becoming a better place. If they back out now all of this would be for absolutely nothing. At least they got to see it through to try and make this invasion worth something to the Iraqi people, not just dead family numbers, lost limbs and grief. It's an unsafe and crazy world out there and I hope that the American foreign policy may turn out to be toned down a little bit .. but what really upsets me about it is their refusal to sign up for the Kyoto protocol and how they are hogging the resources of the globe for the lavish lifestyles, whilst over 60% of their popluation is getting overweight and obease from greed and drive the gas sucking vehicles that are 4 times the size they have to be thousand of people are starving and the world is slowly but surely running out of energy supplies, I feel this is inconsiderate and could prove deadly to a lot more people than the Iraq war ever had the potential of killing.
Cheers
-B
It's a war, innocent people are going to die. Have you ever heard of a war which involves bombs where there are no civilian deaths? I don't recall one. Just because civilians die as a results of bombs been dropped on their country doesn't make the people responsible for dropping those bombs terrorists. Did you cry "terrorists" when Nato killed innocent Serbs in their bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999? Terrorists deliberately target civilians, and as this hasn't been the policy of the coalition in Iraq, it's members are not terrorists.
Well, back then terrorist wasn't such a hype word as it has become today and its new meaning seems to be "those who do not agree with the world view of the United States".
I actually should admit to being wrong here. I have no sympathy for people who chop their prisoners heads off with a knife, they should be hunted down and killed without questions. I just think more could be made from understanding why 17-year-old people feel so overwhelmingly desperate that their lives are worth nothing that they go blow themselves up. There has got to be a reason beyond simple propaganda and instead of looking at the causes why the act is comdenmed and, in the case of the Israeli Palasteinian conflict, the army goes in, bulldozes down their house and shoots a couple of school children in the neighbourhood for good measure. I do admit Iraq id sifferent and in the case of "terrorists" I think they fit the bill better.
I still feel the innocent civilians killed in Iraq through the dropping of bombs should be valued. The war wasn't necessary so the U.S. by its pre-emtive policy in fact killed those civilians outright, in the case of the SErbs the war was already going on and Nato was trying to stop it, not that dropping bombs on innocent people deliberately can ever be justified and I don't know enough about that conflict to comment on that accusation.
So, yes, if terrorism is measured by the klling of innocent civilians I'm afraid the U.S. is, indeed, hhigh on the list of terrorists in the world. They don't even have the dignitiy nor interest to get an accuate estimate of the civilians killed in Iraq, the names are often unknown the numbers are rough estimates and they very from 15000 to 100000 and no one seems to care, it's like the human life, just because it happens to be the life of an Iraqi person, seems worthless.
And during the war the U.S. breaks countless international treeties e.g. on torturing and the treatment of prisoners, and yet they claim they can invade countries for morale reasons and to "liberate them". Those statements imply a sense of moral superiority which is arrogant at best and, as we've seen, intirely unjustified.
cheers
-B
Waynderful Wangel, at least I think that's how you spell your username, I'm very worried by a point you have brought up twice now. You keep emphasising the idea that removing regimes undesirable to us is in the interests of the west. Allow me to press you on this point by asking some very closed questions: first, undesirable to whom? Second, given that the president of South Africa, as well as the Nigerian premiere and the leader of Namibia, openly refused to intervene in the fffairs of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe at the most recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, does this mean that if we think Mugabe's regime is vial, as most in britain, Australia etc. do, that we also despise the regimes of those who openly refuse to condemn him? Thirdly, if your answer to question 2 is 'yes', does it mean we have to remove those regimes too? Fourthly, if your answer to question 2 is 'no', why is that your answer and doesn't your argument lose coherency? Fifth, should we have invaded Austria to remove chancellor Heider when the far right nationalist party was elected into government four years ago? Lastly, if the vlaams Block (The far right Flemish Nationalist party) succeed in their pending appeal against a Belgian high court ruling disbanding them and go on to become the governing party in Flanders, as it is highly likely they will in the Belgian elections some time next year, do we invade belgian and remove the Flanders regime? Do you see the point I am making? Attractively simple though your argument may seem, it does not hold water. Regime change is not a case for war. even in the 1930's during Hitler's time as chancellor of the German Reich, it was not sufficient. I know that none of the six questions I have formulated here relate strictly to Iraq, but it is my suggestion that you really must answer them because if you don't, your argument is a thing writt in water and of no use to anyone. I may be wrong, but to me, the questions I have set out are essential to the success of the case you are making. If not, I'd like to know why not.
I’ve read all your posts and have seen some valid points. Some I agree with other’s I don’t.
I have always found it funny how the rest of the world is so quick to point fingers at the U.S. and tell us we are wrong. On one hand someone suggested we are wrong for evading Iraq and on the other they said we are wrong for not evading Zimbabwe? It’s damned if we do, damned if we don’t. I honestly don’t know much about Zimbabwe but I can say quite confidently that it posses no real threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world and therefore it’s not our job to invade. The same goes for New Zealand.
As for the statement about our technology being just as good as in the 1991 Gulf War; it’s even better now. What you have to understand is that the Gulf War was a very different war. It wasn’t to take out Saddam and the corrupt Iraqi government it was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. It was largely an air-war fought over the desert. Very few American troops ever stepped foot on Iraqi soil. The war going on now is to drive the Saddam government out of power and is largely a ground war requiring U.S. and allied troops to go into cities and towns of Iraq to flush out and eradicate Saddam’s army and the insurgents.
While I do support the war I do think we could have waited longer before going in. However, I’m not sure what difference waiting would have made? Maybe Saddam could have killed more of his own people? Maybe he could have continued to obtain the materials needed to make WMD? Maybe he would have had more time to better arm his troops? I’m really not sure? What I do know is that we gave Saddam ample time to comply with the United Nations weapons inspectors and he refused to do so. President Bush then went on national television and gave a speech for the American people, Saddam and the rest of the world to hear stating what was going to happen and when it was going to happen. Unlike terrorist we didn’t show up one morning in Iraq and say surprise by frivolously killing hundreds of innocent people in the name of Ala or whatever frivolous religious banter of a reason terrorist gave for attacking America.
Unlike terrorist, we didn’t and still don’t target innocent Iraqi civilian. We go after strategic targets and if civilians happen to be killed in the process that is unfortunate, but after all this is war and there’s nothing nice or pretty about war. In the end the number of free Iraqi citizens living a better life will outweigh the number of innocent casualties killed in war.
With all that being said. I do think we bit off more than we can chew. I don’t think the Bush administration anticipated the number of Insurgents. I also think they expected the people of Iraq to stand up on their own faster than what is happening.
I’ve said enough for one post. I’ll let you all fire back at me now.
Absolute nonsense I'm afraid, and typical I have to say of those chronies who surround Bush and leap to his defence before you can say 'lost ballot papers'. For a start, crazy train, what's the frankly absurd reference to New zealand about? secondly, who ever suggested that the US invade Zimbabwe? I find it shocking that you live in ignorance of what is going on in Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe's land reforms, it's quite extraordinary that this item of world affairs has passed you by. Thirdly, you seem to imply that Iraq was posing a threat to the US and that is why Mr Bush walked away from the United Nations, unlike his father who at least had a little more sense than that. Well all I can say is that this assertion is about a spurious as the dodgy dossier on which it was based. the intelligence has been discredited and both Bush and blair know that it was doctored to win support from our respective parliaments. Fourthly, you talk about the US as if we should all be singing 'Guide me, oh thou great redeemer' or something of that sort. For a start, dr Hans Blick who is the leader of the weapons inspectors to whom you refer, said that the job was being completed albeit slowly. Now, I'm not sure whether Mr Blick was right in his optimism, but even if he was not, remember that it was not just Mr Bush who prosecuted this war. You would be nowhere without the excellence of the British troops, and the unfailing support of Prime Minister John Howard of australia. It's strange really, Crazy Train, in that a lot of what you say seems very intelligent, thought through and coherent. i agree that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and I supported the war and continue to do so. Why can't you display a similar analytical mind when talking about the basis for removing regimes?
In this morning's BBC articles there's an interview with president Chiraq of France who claims the world is a less safe place because of the mobilization of the Muslim extremists caused by the American invasion of Iraq, Iraq has proved a great training ground for would-be terrorist and the impreial nature of the American doctraine has, indeed, infuriated not only the muslim extremists but also even more moderate allies.
Now, again I am not completely anti-war. What I cannot forgive Bush is that he led the American people into a war by a mixture of lies and misconceptions. If he said, Iraq is not giving the inspectors the access we asked for (it's not really true, but they were doing so very reluctantly at least) and we want a better lifee for the Iraqis, that's why we are going in and you, American tax payers, incidentally will have to pay $2000/piece for this, do you want to do it or not. He still would've maintained his morale reasoning and, what now appears to be, his real purpose of "freeing" the Iraqi nation. Oddly enough they do nothing about Zimbabwe where land owners are deprived of their farms and forced to leave the country and over 60% of the nation starve qhilst the president enjoyed luxury and refuses to allow U.N. food staff into the country. No one can tell me that he is a less brutal dictator than Hussein was. And, yes, this is a very different war, the 1991 war was supported by a great majority of the world's nations, both financially and morally and it was to free a country that had been invaded. It is our duty as a community to make sure countries have their own self-rule, and the U.S. for one is certainly not respecting that under Bush's lead.
With poewr comes responsibility. the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and hence has a lot of responsibility not to abuse its power, howver pres Bush does not seem to have learnt this lesson yet.
Cheers
-B
Absolutely Wildebrew i agree with that opinion it's well known that the reckless conduct of the american forces will cause an upsurge in the number of militants joining terrorist groups,and the number of insurgents have dramatically increased since the massacre of Fallujah..
And as for the ludicrous accusation levelled against NZ! A country opposed to war they did NOT! Invade East Timor they are there purely as a peace keeping force...Something the american 's seem incapable of achieving in Iraq.
Ah so that's what the reference to New Zealand meant? All is clear to me now and yes, I agree, that makes it all the more ridiculous! Wildebrew you are absolutely right of course, and you mirror my own attitude to thi war and all that has followed it. Although I agree with the general tenor of Chirac's comments I have to say, though, that Jacques Chirac is firstly motivated by an anti-US streak that has characterised his presidency for the last two years. It is Monsieur le President who talks nonsense about a European federal superstate and who is determined to drag France tooth and nail into a closely integrated structure that the population don't want (Hence Jean-Mari Le Pen's success at the last election). it's not surprising therefore that I find Monsieur Chirac's stance on insurgents slightly extreme although along the right lines. secondly, Monsieur Chirac should practice what he preaches and start extending toleration a bit more to French muslims, who are at present not appointed to the prefectures and who are generally alienated by Chirac's attitude to the Ivory Coast, whose airforce the Frenchy government wantonly destroyed very recently.
When I said that regimes need to be removed, I meant those who deliberately harm civilians just because they have opposing views or who in any way assist terrorist organisations. The regime in Iraq did both of these. They paid the families of suicide bombers who killed Israely civilians. I don't believe we can just go into a country and remove the governing regime because it disagrees with this policy. This is my answer to question 2 because the regimes refusing to intervene haven't done anything which in my view constitutes their removal and I've already expressed my view on what constitutes a regimes removal. In answer to question 5, we should only remove the regime in Austria and the one in belgium (if it comes to power) if those regimes harm their civilians or in any way assist terrorist organisations. Also, someone raised a point about the devaluing of the lives of civilians who had been killed by American bombers. They should not be devalued, but their killing doesn't make the Coalition terrorists, because terrorists kill innocent civilians deliberately. Many civilians have died in wars because of bombs been dropped in the air. Those who dropped those bombs have never been refered to as terrorists until this war. The word terrorist is been overused by both supporters and opposers of the war on Iraq.
Hello ZoneBBS readers, There are manny things Iwill not understand but at the top of my list is Why Are Still In Erock? They have made it verry clear that We are not wanted there. Would any of you go to some one's house and help them if you were being hurt or even wors your life was on the line? No you probley would not. That is what manny people are doing as we speak. Theese are kids who are bearly old enough to voat. Cend every one home Mr. Bush. Try to give your self some credibleety. Thankyou for reading. Please cend a PM to give your opinion of what you have just read.
Helping a nations people and helping out some people in a house are two entirely different things. Anyone with sense could have realised that this move wouldn't be universally popular with the Iraqi people and there's no doubt the Americans have made a few errors there. However, you wouldn't hear about someone in their house needing help unless they informed you, and if they informed you then at least by them you'd be welcome. Maybe you wouldn't be welcome by the causers of the problem but that wouldn't matter, because it's them and the problems they were causing which would provide you with the reason for been there and your intentions which would be to change the direction of the situation which had occured to one which the person calling for your assistance was satisfied with.
Waynderful Wangel, I'm not going to be able to let you off the hook about my six questions I'm afraid. You purport to answer question 2 but don't really answer it, and needless to say, you leave many of the questions unanswered at least indirectly. Let me give you a further opportunity, because perhaps I asked too many questions in one go last time: Robert Mugabe's regime is crippling Zimbabwe because of land reform. White farmers are being stripped of their goods, and the country's economy is virtually grinding to a hault. In short, civilians are being harmed. Now, according to your argument, we should remove Mr Mugabe from power. however, President Mbecki of South Africa, as well as other African heads of state such as the Namibian and Nigerian premiers, support the continuation of the Mugabe regime. So my question to you is this: your threshold having been met for the removal of the Zimbabwean regime i.e. the deaths of civilians, should we remove Mr Mugabe and all the other regimes that support him? To put it another way, should we remove Zimbabwe's premier and then proceed to remove the South African, Nigerian, Namibian, Kenyan, Ethiopian leaders? That is really the question you must answer, and my accusation levelled at your argument is, in summary, that your perceptively simple theory of international law and relations is deeply flawed, not least because it would mean the destabilisation of entire regions. Secondly, of course, you state that causing death to civilians is your threshold test, but that, my friend, is not nearly sufficient in terms of a test. it's far too imprecise. should, for instance, we remove the Saudi royal family due to the numerous executions that take place there each year? What I think you're trying to say is that in csaes of genocide, we should act and remove the regime. That may be true, and indeed I find that view attractive to a degree, but genocide and causing civilian deaths are two completely different animals. causation in itself, as all lawyers know, is a hotly disputed topic.
I did answer that question. I don't believe that we should remove the South African regime or any other regime because of their views towards another regime. As for the Saudi Royal Family, they should be on the list of regimes which need to be removed if they're deliberately harming people because they disagree with their policies. Obviously this is a very slow process it may take many years to remove these regimes, but I don't think many people would want to live under that style of government, I certainly wouldn't and am thankful that I don't.
But don't you see? that's exactly where you fall into error. You take the standards by which you would like to live, and apply them universally to the entire world. well I'm sorry, but that is a terribly unsophisticated, inaccurate, and misleading way to look at international relations. You fail to see, for instance, that in singapore, Malaysia and the like, the sentence of whipping or public humiliation for petty crime is considered the norm and nobody would take a blind bit of notice of you if you considered imposing your standards on them. likewise Saudi-Arabia live by Islamic law, and that is something that in my view they have a cultural justification for doing. We might entreat them to respect the human rights of their citizens, but we cannot charge in gun-ho like a depressingly large number of American commanders and politicians seem to think we can and remove the regimes. Do you see the point I'm making? Your arguments have no subtlety. In addition, given your answer to question 2 above viz. that we should not remove regimes who support Mr Mugabe even if we think we should remove Mr Mugabe's regime, in my submission your arguments are without logic and unsustainable. Let's say that you, with your gun-ho commanders, remove Mr Mugabe. You then incur the wrath of the regimes that supported him and they refuse to trade or do business with you. What are you going to do then? Continue making enemies? Secondly, you seem to ffound your justification for removing a regime on your own ideals, and you justify the removal of the Zimbabwean regime because it does not conform to your notion of the rights of civilians. However, as a matter of pure logic, surely your wrath should be directed at all regimes who agree with the Zimbabwean regime, and consequently disagreee with you? In summary, your dog's breakfast of a foreign policy seems to have one rule for one and another for another. I pity your foreign secretary when he has to come to the despatch box to say that the government decided to remove a regime because of its causing civilian deaths, but thought that the other regimes who agreed with the removed regime were fine as they are, even though they might help re-establish the tyranny. Your government would scarcely sustain itself for a single parliament on that basis.
To: hulkhoganforever == From: CG == "Gotta Say, Man-hulkhoganforever that I, CG, AGREE with what you are saying".=====**PEACE**
Other nations would trade with us because many don't support the one in Zimbabwe. If the regime was removed, then those who'd supported it may not continue to and switch to the new regime.
The operative word is 'may'. They may switch to the new regime but that is unrealistic in my view. More likely is that we would be vilified in the same way that we have been on Iraq. And that would certainly be the case if we went to remove every regime that didn't take our fancy.