English Chess Forum

Stephen westmorland said he would debate the iraq war 2 with me. I think the arab nations were become more overtly terroristic in they approach and theyre were many muslims wanting a war with israel which might or might not involve the russians. in that light the main protagonist in that war on israel was saddam hussein who wanted to divert his unpopularity domestically and internationally by using hatred of the jews as a political weapon. America would have protected israel for sure so a conflict with the muslim nations would have become very hot, so to speak. That is my analysis and i stand by it. I am a socialist but i see inclusive nationalism in the form of being pro-British as not akin to national socialism, the point is nationalism isnt just the preserve of the right but in getting your own house in order so that you can reach out to other nations and peoples in trouble is what i mean by inclusive nationalism which used to be a liberal ideology. Blair it seems to me wants power for the sake of it and is an insidious character behind many of the labour parties post Corbyn nature and during the night of the long knives of the parliamentary revolt against a saintly figure as corbyn.

i want a labour party that is socialist and not self destructive like the labour party that clement atlee would recognise and applaud

maybe i didnt make myself clear i support and supported Blairs call to arms in iraq but feel Blair is wrong on other issues mostly on not supporting socialism

Well I personally had an interesting conversation in 2006 with the most important person in British chess who told me we had to invade Iraq because it would have made the Serbians respect the Dutch peacekeepers to have had a reputation for invading things.

When you say the Arab nations were being terroristic, are you including the Arab nations who gave logistical support to the USA and Britain in invading Iraq, including the socialist Peshmerga, or the Wahhabist clique whom the Tories concluded are the world's largest exporter of terrorism but wouldn't publish the report?

i am not being anti-muslim here as far as im concerned the Palestinians have a right to self defence but so do the Israelis but you get no-where attacking innocents and with terrorism infact you prove your enemy right by using terrorism. Sure the west is complicit in the question but still forgiveness is the way of the lord and leads to enlightenment.

Let me ask the question more directly:

"I think the arab nations were become more overtly terroristic in they approach"

Is what you said.

Do you include Saudi Arabia as one of the Arab nations?

Which Arab nations are you actually referring to?

Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, UAE? Or just Iraq?

You don't win a war on terror by attacking secular states Alan. There were a lot of lies and misinformation in the case for war. Did not believe it or support it at the time.

i supported it at the time and still think it was the right decission, most of the disinformation comes on the other side you must realise this-by going to war with them the east saw the power of western press and decided to take it over.

What about weapons of mass destruction and the 45min claim? The case for war was complete rubbish.

you say that about the claims for war but the same claims against war are made by the self same media that hyped a war, you didnt believe them then but believe them now...

You have no idea what I believe. There was a case for war made at the time and it was false. No war is good and that one was not necessary.