blair

[roadbowler]

aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?

[Stavro]

There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.

So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 in New York and made a hole in the Pentagon, all controlled by a bloke in a cave in Afghanistan? And that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just happened to be directors of companies given contracts to "rebuild" Iraq?

Wow. I don't know what you drink in the pub, but it must be strong stuff indeed to fuddle your mind so much.

[Stavro]

aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?

Clicked on the positive rep icon for this comment, but the program would not allow me to give you the rep, so I'll say it publicly: Your comments on this thread go right to the heart of the matter, in my opinion, and I thank you for the encouragement I feel from the compassion that you show to our fellow human beings in Iraq.

This was never a "war," but a cowardly slaughter of people who never did the British any harm, nor posed any threat.

This cowardly slaughter was not done in my name, nor in my family's name. Perhaps Blair will one day inform us of what name it was conceived in.

I hope that the Scots have the guts to stand up and arrest this criminal and time his release to coincide with the release of the post mortem results on Dr Kelly.

[fred]

Re. Tony Blair and his current ordeal:
I'm with Gleeber on this one. The smug pieties of the "unco guid" left get right up my nose.
There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.
I am compiling a list of pub bores. Somewhere near the top is the guy who explains that it is "all about oil." So if you are sitting on oil in some benighted part of the urals or wherever and you want to sell the stuff you can't do it. Because it is not politically correct.
So I have a couple of questions - is it OK to sell your oil in the first place? And if it is, then to whom should you sell your oil?
And as an addendum there is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the world is not running out of oil after all. Some experts say we are OK for the next hundred years. That should give us enought time to do something about tidying up the environment without the paranoid anxiety to which so many ORGERS succumb.
So relax. Go and have a beer. But dont get talking to the guy next to you who is doing the Guardian crossword. Believe me, stay away! Big bore alert!!!!

Thanks to documents not declassified and shown to the Chilcot inquiry but leaked to the Independent and published this morning it looks a lot like it was about oil.

Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-1885155.html

It also contradicts Blair's testimony that plans to depose Saddam Hussein began after 9/11.

[fred]

aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?

Just reading on presstv this morning, the Iraqi government is taking the British and American governments to court for compensation.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...onid=351020201

[Phill]

So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2,

A few hours on flight sim to get the procedures right, a bit of live flying to get the feel and yeah, pretty feasible.
They weren't doing precision approaches and pillow soft landings, it is actually quite easy to crash a plane.

[rich]

Oil is a vital part of the Iraq economy. It makes perfect sense for the USA and the UK to attempt to persuade the Iraqui people that any invasion plans would lead to economic opportunities for citizens. That is called wishful thinking, or propaganda. It has its place!
But that is very different from saying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over oil, or even that oil is necessarily a vital motivation behind these wars.
I have a friend who has a friend (how's that for sourcing!) who spent 20 years in Jordan as a diplomatic adviser. My friend's friend said that in the Middle East one should always "look to the oil."
I include that piece of wisdom to show that I am quite aware of the arguments on the other side.
But I am not convinced.
Historians of the 19th century in general and 19th century Britain in particular long ago coined the term "Queen Victoria's little wars" as a means of making sense of all the wars in the British Empire from the 1850s to the Boer War.
Rarely are the causes of these wars what common sense might tell you. The arguments based on looting and pillaging (as in India) falter when you realise that by the time the British got there the looting and pillaging was over.
A much better argument might be that the technologically advanced European countries used the establishment of colonies to annoy the neighbours. SOunds incredible. Check out Bismark's foreign policy re the British and the rush for Africa.
Then there is the "we're here because we're here" school of imperialism. And we shall not be moved! Ireland springs to mind. And possibly India.
Then there are those imperialists who insisted on introducing modern medicine and education, public libraries the whole magilla. "We'll get out when the job's done chaps"

[rich]

What I think about the wars in Iraq, Kurdisran and Afghanistan is that these are the 21st century equivalents of the kind of war practiced by the British on the frontiers of the Empire in the 19th century.
Plus ca change!
One might argue that this time the British are going in as junior partners to the USA. And that is new.
But the Imperal Lion is a rather bedraggled creature when it comes to cutting a dash militarily speaking. We had the French on our side in the Crimean War.In the First and Second world wars the United States saved our bacon.
And let's look at the British Warlords. Haig in 1914-18 was Scottish, Welsh Lloyd George provided the political acumen. In WW2 Montgomery was from Ulster - I hope you get my point. Making war has a class component in the UK, just as everything else does.
The thing about Blair is he is typical. Sadly typical? Successfuly typical? Your verdict!

[Alan16]

The real judgement, in my opinion, will occur at the time of Blair's death.

What, when God sends him to hell? Give me a break, Blair will rot in the ground just like you, just like me.

So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 in New York and made a hole in the Pentagon, all controlled by a bloke in a cave in Afghanistan?

Well they were not exactly looking for a perfect landing were they?

And you think it was what? Bush and his cronies who arranged the death of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three of their own countrymen and women? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three - you think they were that evil? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three. Remember that number before you type such rubbish again.

I hope that the Scots have the guts to stand up and arrest this criminal and time his release to coincide with the release of the post mortem results on Dr Kelly.

If they do it will not be done in my name. Yet I imagine that doesn't matter to you.

[rich]

May I end these long posts with a cautionary note on Scottish Tony Blair?
J.M.Barry said it best:
"There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make."
Thanks!

[Boozeburglar]

For all the folks who think someone in the US elite planned the 9/11 attacks . . . .

You really need to get out more.

On this occasion I actually mean out! Anywhere away from roads, strangers and sharp things. Most importantly, away from the internet. It is too easy for paranoid loners to gain group consensus online.

Even if an evil, corrupt elite might ever plan something like 9/11; it is totally insane to think that the hundreds or thousands of people who would need to be involved would go along with it, and keep it secret!

It is not like an assassination.

[fred]

Oil is a vital part of the Iraq economy. It makes perfect sense for the USA and the UK to attempt to persuade the Iraqui people that any invasion plans would lead to economic opportunities for citizens. That is called wishful thinking, or propaganda. It has its place!
But that is very different from saying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over oil, or even that oil is necessarily a vital motivation behind these wars.
I have a friend who has a friend (how's that for sourcing!) who spent 20 years in Jordan as a diplomatic adviser. My friend's friend said that in the Middle East one should always "look to the oil."
I include that piece of wisdom to show that I am quite aware of the arguments on the other side.
But I am not convinced.
Historians of the 19th century in general and 19th century Britain in particular long ago coined the term "Queen Victoria's little wars" as a means of making sense of all the wars in the British Empire from the 1850s to the Boer War.
Rarely are the causes of these wars what common sense might tell you. The arguments based on looting and pillaging (as in India) falter when you realise that by the time the British got there the looting and pillaging was over.
A much better argument might be that the technologically advanced European countries used the establishment of colonies to annoy the neighbours. SOunds incredible. Check out Bismark's foreign policy re the British and the rush for Africa.
Then there is the "we're here because we're here" school of imperialism. And we shall not be moved! Ireland springs to mind. And possibly India.
Then there are those imperialists who insisted on introducing modern medicine and education, public libraries the whole magilla. "We'll get out when the job's done chaps"

The Empire wasn't built by British soldiers, the Empire was built by mercenaries, most of them foreign. The East India Company had an army of mercenaries larger than any European country. The British army didn't go into India till the mutiny, the East India Company and their private army had been ruling India for almost a century then.

The building of the Empire was a commercial enterprise not political, just like our invasion of Iraq.

[fred]

And you think it was what? Bush and his cronies who arranged the death of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three of their own countrymen and women? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three - you think they were that evil? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three. Remember that number before you type such rubbish again.

America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.

They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.

Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.

[ducati]

America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.

They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.

Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.

Oh Fred! Not again..

Do you honestly believe this or is it a wind up? I would be the first to agree the USA-specifically, the CIA are capable of some pretty outrageous "foreign policy" gaffs. All be it in the interest of American business interests, slowing down drug imports, slowing down enemies supply routes. There is a theme to all this and that is, it is in American interests. What American interest would be served in murdering an outrageous number of American citizens and badly damaging the infrastructure of one of their own major cities, in the most public way possible?

All in a time when: I quote: They can't keep the Presidents love life a secret.

Give me strength!

[Alan16]

Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.

Well then you're a disgraceful human being.

[Stavro]

Well then you're a disgraceful human being.

It is clear to me that your university teaches you what to think, but certainly not how to think.

You are being taught physics, is that right? Then how did the wings fold flat against the body of the plane that went into the Pentagon, such that we only had one hole in the wall?

[Alan16]

It is clear to me that your university teaches you what to think, but certainly not how to think.

Well I've not actually had any lectures on Tony Blair, so not really...

You are being taught physics, is that right? Then how did the wings fold flat against the body of the plane that went into the Pentagon, such that we only had one hole in the wall?

Astrophysics. And I do not know if that is what happened, and no offence, but I'd rather not take your word on it.

[Stavro]

Well I've not actually had any lectures on Tony Blair, so not really...



Astrophysics. And I do not know if that is what happened, and no offence, but I'd rather not take your word on it.

Well, then, you run off and continue to be spoon fed.

The "explanation" was from MIT. I better give you time to read up on it, since you are clearly incapable of reasoning for yourself.

[golach]

America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.

They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.

Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.

Sighs..........Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[roadbowler]

alan, actually, approximately, 1/8th of the casualities were foreign. Secondly, i have to really wonder how one can look at the staggering amount of atrocities perpetuated or assisted by western governments and think that someone who thinks they could be responsible for well maybe just another (which is frankly, fairly small fish compared to some of the others) is a 'disgraceful person'?