blair

[roadbowler]

lizz, well articulated rant at that! ;-)

[cullbucket]

This still annoys the hell out of me years later.
I still find it hard to believe that such a brazen attempt was made to pull the wool over the public's eyes to justify the war using WMD, 40 mins etc, when it was patently obvious that this was just spin and maneuvering to justify a course of action that had already been decided long ago. Never mind the legality or morality, because international law does not apply to the US and if we are with them, it will not apply to us either.
The politicians must think the general public is really dumb....
I am also sure that Blair fully believes what he is saying, he has brainwashed himself to believe that he is and was right, even though the revelations over time have shown this to be untrue.
The other thing that amazes me is the focusing on the western casualty numbers (UK deaths in Iraq are 179 to date) whereas Hundreds of Thousands of Iraquis have died, but somehow their deaths are less valid or important, because they're foreign....

[EDDIE]

Lets face it saddam didnt do himself any favours in trying to stop the war the only gripe i have about it is they should have invaded iraq in the early 90s when iraqi attacked kuwait and all the troops was there.
Imagine if sadam did get hold of a nuclear bomb he would press the button.

Imagine what it must be like to be a prime minister and to make that decision to go to war and knowingly no that there would be a high risk of casualtys and soldiers getting killed or severly disabled for life for making that decision which you as a prime minister believes is the right thing to do at the that point in time we can all look back now and judge things but its whole lot different if we was put in that position back then to make that call

[fred]

Lets face it saddam didnt do himself any favours in trying to stop the war the only gripe i have about it is they should have invaded iraq in the early 90s when iraqi attacked kuwait and all the troops was there.
Imagine if sadam did get hold of a nuclear bomb he would press the button.

No he wouldn't.

America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.

A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.

[EDDIE]

No he wouldn't.

America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.

A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.

If saddam ordered chemical ally to kill thousands of there own people by chemical warfare what else is he capable off.
Nuclear weapons is more of a deffence tactic for countrys that are sensible.U give a nuclear weapon to some of these people in the middle east that are quite happy to use themselves as bombs there will be nuclear war.
Now all this was back then now look at 2010 now its iran thats taunting the world with its ambition for nuclear weapons and power stations and breaking all the international laws i reckon iran is the next country to get attacked if they dont mend there ways

[Tom Cornwall]

the UK has had a few enquiries about the Iraq war, but I don't see anybody asking the question...if it was illegal, why has no country been indicted, ....also has there been one enquiry in the US about George W's role in invading Iraq? I doubt it...the war has happened, time can't be turned back...

[ducati]

No he wouldn't.

America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.

A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.

The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.

There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.

It's only a matter of time folks

[gleeber]

Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.

Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you.
It would be a waste of time trying to defend the actions of Western leaders on this thread because there is no argument against the phantasies of so many respected orgers.
Good to see you back Fred. Still as abstract as ever too. Theres plenty of it on the org. Welcome back. You belong here.
I wondered, if nuclear weapons are purely defensive do you think it would be an idea if some of those extremist religious types our troops are fighting in Afghanastan and Iraq were allowed to develop them too. Then they could just wiggle their ears at each other and the religious types could go home and beat their wives or go to a stoning in the town square or kick a poof to death or even censor the internet and anyone who calls their leaders bad names could be hung by the necks until they were dead.
There were surely be a few hangings on the org if that was the case.
I believe in the war on terror and although Iraq was a different kettle of fish, as Tony Blair said we are now in 2010 and whether Iraq had been invaded or not the problem of extremist religious groups was not going to go away. September 11 changed all that.
These people hate us and our way of life. Its just sad to see that our own people are hating us too although they may change their minds very quickly if the oil they accuse the Americans of chasing was suddenly denied them when they did their weekly shopping in Tescos or if your luucky Asda. Mind you it wouldnt take long for that weekly shopping to be under threat too if those extermist types were allowed to wander the globe willy nilly.

[Phill]

Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you.
It would be a waste of time trying to defend the actions of Western leaders on this thread because there is no argument against the phantasies of so many respected orgers.
Good to see you back Fred. Still as abstract as ever too. Theres plenty of it on the org. Welcome back. You belong here.
I wondered, if nuclear weapons are purely defensive do you think it would be an idea if some of those extremist religious types our troops are fighting in Afghanastan and Iraq were allowed to develop them too. Then they could just wiggle their ears at each other and the religious types could go home and beat their wives or go to a stoning in the town square or kick a poof to death or even censor the internet and anyone who calls their leaders bad names could be hung by the necks until they were dead.
There were surely be a few hangings on the org if that was the case.
I believe in the war on terror and although Iraq was a different kettle of fish, as Tony Blair said we are now in 2010 and whether Iraq had been invaded or not the problem of extremist religious groups was not going to go away. September 11 changed all that.
These people hate us and our way of life. Its just sad to see that our own people are hating us too although they may change their minds very quickly if the oil they accuse the Americans of chasing was suddenly denied them when they did their weekly shopping in Tescos or if your luucky Asda. Mind you it wouldnt take long for that weekly shopping to be under threat too if those extermist types were allowed to wander the globe willy nilly.

Fair comment, but do you not think the reason they may hate us is because the infidel are currently on their territory, killing their people and trying to impose our western ways on them whilst raping them for their oil.

I think I'd be a tad upset too.

And the US want that oil to do us a favour in the UK? I think not.

Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types but taking them by force in a possibly illegal move isn't really the moral high ground is it.

[Blarney]

the UK has had a few enquiries about the Iraq war, but I don't see anybody asking the question...if it was illegal, why has no country been indicted, ....also has there been one enquiry in the US about George W's role in invading Iraq? I doubt it...the war has happened, time can't be turned back...

Are you suggesting Tom that this enquiry serves no purpose because you can't turn back the clock? If leaders aren't answerable to the nation for their actions then they are no better than the dictators they strive to eliminate.

[gleeber]

Fair comment, but do you not think the reason they may hate us is because the infidel are currently on their territory, killing their people and trying to impose our western ways on them whilst raping them for their oil.

I think I'd be a tad upset too.

And the US want that oil to do us a favour in the UK? I think not.

Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types but taking them by force in a possibly illegal move isn't really the moral high ground is it.

Like someone said. Its much more complex than the picture you paint. Apparently there are some, and I dont know the figures, Iraqis and Afghanis who see the way forward as democracy. That being the case surely we should support them rather than down the foreign policy of our freedom loving freinds over the ocean?
Oh and by the way how many modern day conflicts could it be argued were legal? Kosova? Seirra Leone? I'm sure there are others but there are deeper more complex matters involved in human relations. Some day perhaps, but at the moment those of us with opinions must be aware that we don't have to make decisions like the leaders we vote for and if we did I would be rather worried going by the content of some of the threads on the org.

[fred]

If saddam ordered chemical ally to kill thousands of there own people by chemical warfare what else is he capable off.
Nuclear weapons is more of a deffence tactic for countrys that are sensible.U give a nuclear weapon to some of these people in the middle east that are quite happy to use themselves as bombs there will be nuclear war.
Now all this was back then now look at 2010 now its iran thats taunting the world with its ambition for nuclear weapons and power stations and breaking all the international laws i reckon iran is the next country to get attacked if they dont mend there ways

He didn't exactly see them as his own people, he saw them as Kurds who had decided to side with Iran in the Iran Iraq war, he saw them as the enemy not as his own people.

Iran is breaking no laws, they are one of the few countries which aren't. They have signed the NPT and have the legal right to develop nuclear technology. There is no evidence they have a nuclear weapons program and even if they had who could blame them? Look what we did to their neighbours who didn't have nuclear capability. It's not like Iran is an aggressive country, they haven't started any wars, they haven't invaded anyone like we did. America on the other hand is still developing and building new nuclear weapons despite it being illegal under the terms of the NPT which they signed. They have invaded two countries illegally in the last 10 years and intervened in several others. They are the only country in the world ever to have used nuclear weapons. Israel has the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has not signed the NPT and has a bad record for starting wars of aggression.

[fred]

The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.

There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.

It's only a matter of time folks

No, you are wrong.

America has a large nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. Britain has nuclear submarines which would take out any country which used nuclear weapons against us.

No country would use nuclear weapons against us first because they know it would mean the destruction of their own country, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is to prevent others using them on you, a deterrent.

Are you learning nothing from the Chilcot Inquiry? Everyone was so scared of Saddam Hussein back in 2003, they made everyone scared so they could invade Iraq. Now it turns out there was nothing to be scared of, Saddam couldn't hurt us or anyone else, there were no WMD, there was no weapons program, there was no yellowcake from Niger, there were no links to Al Qaeda.

Iran would like nothing more than to live in peace with the West, the only obstacle to that is our greed. Look at their history, what did they ever do to us? What did we do to them? What are we still doing to them?





When will they ever learn.

[Phill]

Like someone said. Its much more complex than the picture you paint. Apparently there are some, and I dont know the figures, Iraqis and Afghanis who see the way forward as democracy.

It is very easy for us to sit here in our armchairs and debate / dictate world policy.
But forcing a democracy is a very difficult game to play.

but at the moment those of us with opinions must be aware that we don't have to make decisions like the leaders we vote for and if we did I would be rather worried going by the content of some of the threads on the org.

Aye, back to the thread. The decisions (decision, in this case) is the question, well the evidence used on which that decision was based.

[gleeber]

It is very easy for us to sit here in our armchairs and debate / dictate world policy.
But forcing a democracy is a very difficult game to play.

Yes its difficult but history will be the judge.
If all the hidden prejudices that caused the first world war had been repressed perhaps there would have been no Hitler and if there had been no Hitler the world would be a different place today but all those hidden prejudices would still be real. A lot of them still are real but the past teaches us lessons.
Churchill was aware of the danger of National Socialism long before anyone else in his position and the same thing applys today to the dangers of religious extremism. I dont think people are taking it as serious as it deserves to be taken.
Let history be the judge, but lets not stop debating it.

[cullbucket]

Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types

Quite a good description of republican Americans.....

[Phill]

Quite a good description of republican Americans.....

I was thinking that, the good ole rethuglicans !! I was thinking of drawing the similarities but then we are into thread drift.

[Tristan]

Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you.

Have or had? Are you saying you still think the politicians told the truth about WMD?

Perhaps the word is a bit strong. The WMD was an obvious lie then and it is clear now they never existed.

[Boozeburglar]

The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.

There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.

It's only a matter of time folks

That cheered me up, thanks.

[cullbucket]

I think this is what I was trying to say earlier.... says it much better than I could...

With the wisdom of hindsight it is easy for his critics to attack the former prime minister for being an over-believer. In the weeks before the conflict Blair immersed himself in the just war theology of Thomas Aquinas, convinced himself that it applied to Iraq, and became a moralistic, almost messianic, advocate of invasion. The problem was not a shortage of sincerity but an excess of zeal in which self-belief overrode objective judgment.

from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-judge-forgive