Tony Blair...

[saintfully]

Does the suspicious suicide of Dr David Kelly still cast a shadow over all of this, especially when "grey" people were apparently searching for his body when it was "not known" that he was missing let alone dead.

 

The story that people (whose identity remains unknown) were searching for Dr Kellys body before he'd been reported missing is a fact.

 

It is also the case that the injuries sustained by Dr Kelly were extremely unlikely to lead to death.

 

How these circumstances were swept under the carpet I will never understand... but its almost certainly the case that he was killed by somebody, and did not commit suicide.

[Sheaf Saint]

The story that people (whose identity remains unknown) were searching for Dr Kellys body before he'd been reported missing is a fact.

 

It is also the case that the injuries sustained by Dr Kelly were extremely unlikely to lead to death.

 

How these circumstances were swept under the carpet I will never understand... but its almost certainly the case that he was killed by somebody, and did not commit suicide.

 

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397625.stm

 

According to his wife, he was planning on writing a book exposing how the flawed intelligence was grossly over-exaggerated. As far as Blair and his cronies were concerned, he had to be silenced.

 

My immediate reaction when I heard that he had been found dead was that he must have been assassinated as he was the only person who could prove that Blair's reasons for going to war were a lie. I did think at the time that surely, in this day and age, that kind of high-level corruption including the murder of witnesses could never take place in a civilised society, but as I have grown a lot older since then, and subsequently become more cynical, I have nop doubt that that kind of evil exists not only in the world, but in the British government.

 

It makes me sad to realise that, but it is an inescapable truth. I have no doubt that Blair has the blood of Dr Kelly on his hands every bit as much as he does the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at the hands of coalition forces since 2003. All in my humble opinion, of course. And to think he now calls himself a christian! How does he think he is going to be allowed into heaven when he is nothing more than a war criminal?

[View From The Top]

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397625.stm

 

According to his wife, he was planning on writing a book exposing how the flawed intelligence was grossly over-exaggerated. As far as Blair and his cronies were concerned, he had to be silenced.

 

My immediate reaction when I heard that he had been found dead was that he must have been assassinated as he was the only person who could prove that Blair's reasons for going to war were a lie. I did think at the time that surely, in this day and age, that kind of high-level corruption including the murder of witnesses could never take place in a civilised society, but as I have grown a lot older since then, and subsequently become more cynical, I have nop doubt that that kind of evil exists not only in the world, but in the British government.

 

It makes me sad to realise that, but it is an inescapable truth. I have no doubt that Blair has the blood of Dr Kelly on his hands every bit as much as he does the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died at the hands of coalition forces since 2003. All in my humble opinion, of course. And to think he now calls himself a christian! How does he think he is going to be allowed into heaven when he is nothing more than a war criminal?

 

 

Fine up to then.

 

Most deaths in Iraq post 2003 have been from internecine fighting.

 

To claim that the armed forces are responsible is just plain wrong.

 

Shia and Sunni have been killing each other for centuries and all the fall of Saddam did is give them another country to play that out in.

[JackFrost]

Fine up to then.

 

Most deaths in Iraq post 2003 have been from internecine fighting.

 

To claim that the armed forces are responsible is just plain wrong.

 

Shia and Sunni have been killing each other for centuries and all the fall of Saddam did is give them another country to play that out in.

 

While i agree the armed forces aren't themselves responsible for the Iraqi civilian's death, the civil unrest was so predictable before the invasion happened.

 

I recently attended a talk by Canon Andrew White (nicknamed The Vicar of Baghdad). As well as running the only Christian church in Baghdad he also negotiates the release of western hostages and regularly speaks to local Muslim leaders.

 

Just before the coalition forces invaded, he was warning about local ethnic tensions rising between Shia and Sunni Muslims and an ensueing battle for territory based on resources like water and oil. (The Shias and Sunni lived side by side under Saddam).

 

He was categorically told down the phone by a top Home Office official "Religion isn't that important in Iraq".

 

Says it all.

[View From The Top]

While i agree the armed forces aren't themselves responsible for the Iraqi civilian's death, the civil unrest was so predictable before the invasion happened.

 

To eveyone apart from those planning the war you mean!

 

It really didn't take an expert on Islam, The Gulf or International Politics to see it.

[JackFrost]

To eveyone apart from those planning the war you mean!

 

It really didn't take an expert on Islam, The Gulf or International Politics to see it.

 

Quite.

 

White for example originally supported the invasion but when he started to see the shambles unravelling shortly before, during and after the invasion his (and a lot of other peoples') opinions changed very quickly.

[Joensuu]

I don't think that our support of Saddam Hussein was right or ever could be right.

Agreed.

I also believe that our strategy in iraq and the middle east in general has been bad in recent years.

Agreed. It would be pushing it to call our strategy 'strategic'.

However, this does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was a murdering tyrant and the world IS a much better place without him in charge of a country in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Whether or not war was the best way of getting to this goal, we shall never know; but what I do know is that I am much more content knowing that that man no longer reigns in Iraq.

Again, agree, however, this was never the stated aim of the action. Had it been the war would have been even more illegal.

 

In addition I would argue:

1. Saddam posed no miliatary threat whatsoever to the West.
   
2. Saddam posed a moderate threat to neighbouring countries.
   
3. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has indirectly (but entirely predictably) caused more civilian deaths and suffering than Saddam achieved in 23 years.
   
4. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has (entirely predictably) encouraged anti-western sentiment throughout the Middle East.
   
5. Iraq under Saddam had little time for terrorists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of terrorists (and terrorist sympathisers) in Iraq (and globally)
   
6. Iraq under Saddam had little time for religious extremists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of religious extremists in Iraq.
   
7. There were, and are, far worse dictatorships in the world than Saddam ever was. Any argument that toppling Saddam was a good thing, needs first to justify why the west targetted a lesser dictator first.
   
8. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive cost the the UK taxpayer.
   

There is (and was) no concievable justification for toppling Saddam. Any fair an just society would prosecute Blair - not for revenge, but to help prevent any future Prime Minister from abusing their position so rashly.

[Sheaf Saint]

Fine up to then.

 

Most deaths in Iraq post 2003 have been from internecine fighting.

 

To claim that the armed forces are responsible is just plain wrong.

 

Shia and Sunni have been killing each other for centuries and all the fall of Saddam did is give them another country to play that out in.

 

Yes you are right. Sorry I got distracted whilst typing that post and it didn't come out quite how I meant it to. However, even though those deaths are not directly attributable to the coalition forces in Iraq, they can be indirectly attributed to the removal of Saddam Hussein which caused all the in-fighting in the first place.

 

Whatever anybody may think about Saddam, events in the country since he was toppled have shown that he was absoultely correct when he claimed that 'the only way to rule Iraq is with an iron fist'.

[Hamilton Saint]

Agreed.

Agreed. It would be pushing it to call our strategy 'strategic'. Again, agree, however, this was never the stated aim of the action. Had it been the war would have been even more illegal.

 

In addition I would argue:

1. Saddam posed no miliatary threat whatsoever to the West.
   
2. Saddam posed a moderate threat to neighbouring countries.
   
3. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has indirectly (but entirely predictably) caused more civilian deaths and suffering than Saddam achieved in 23 years.
   
4. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has (entirely predictably) encouraged anti-western sentiment throughout the Middle East.
   
5. Iraq under Saddam had little time for terrorists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of terrorists (and terrorist sympathisers) in Iraq (and globally)
   
6. Iraq under Saddam had little time for religious extremists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of religious extremists in Iraq.
   
7. There were, and are, far worse dictatorships in the world than Saddam ever was. Any argument that toppling Saddam was a good thing, needs first to justify why the west targetted a lesser dictator first.
   
8. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive cost the the UK taxpayer.
   

There is (and was) no concievable justification for toppling Saddam. Any fair an just society would prosecute Blair - not for revenge, but to help prevent any future Prime Minister from abusing their position so rashly.

 

It's well-known that Bush and his crew had already decided that they wanted to get rid of Hussein (whose regime he included in the so-called "axis of evil"). The attacks on New York and The Pentagon gave them the pretext they needed. The various reasons provided (WMD, "regime change", expansion of democracy in the ME) were justifications for a decision already made.

[Saintandy666]

In addition I would argue:

1. Saddam posed no miliatary threat whatsoever to the West.
   
2. Saddam posed a moderate threat to neighbouring countries.
   
3. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has indirectly (but entirely predictably) caused more civilian deaths and suffering than Saddam achieved in 23 years.
   
4. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has (entirely predictably) encouraged anti-western sentiment throughout the Middle East.
   
5. Iraq under Saddam had little time for terrorists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of terrorists (and terrorist sympathisers) in Iraq (and globally)
   
6. Iraq under Saddam had little time for religious extremists. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive increase in the number of religious extremists in Iraq.
   
7. There were, and are, far worse dictatorships in the world than Saddam ever was. Any argument that toppling Saddam was a good thing, needs first to justify why the west targetted a lesser dictator first.
   
8. The 2003 invasion has (entirely predictably) resulted in a massive cost the the UK taxpayer.
   

There is (and was) no concievable justification for toppling Saddam. Any fair an just society would prosecute Blair - not for revenge, but to help prevent any future Prime Minister from abusing their position so rashly.

 

Points 1 + 2: I disagree with this, I think Saddam was the kind of guy who had shown in the past he was likely to invade countries in the region(Iran and Kuwait) and with the region being so important to the world, yet also unstable it is entirely faesable that a massive war could have eventually broken out because of one of his actions.

 

Point 3: I don't think this can ever be proved to be honest, each have caused deaths in the tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands, both are terrible, but I do think that a systemised genoicide is worse than a war and in 10 years time I think the benefit will be seen. The kurds are flourishing now.

 

Points 4 and 5 and 6: I do not think this is strictly true, I think in the immediate aftermath of the war(up to 2 or 3 years ago) surveys showed Iraqi support for the Invasion and opposition to terrorism and so on was high, but as the occupation went on and on this wained. More recently, positivity and support for the invasion has been on the rise. I think this is a failure of the after war strategy rather than the war itself. Most Iraqis were unhappy under Saddam.

 

I don't think it was the war that was the problem, what was the problem was how long we stayed there afterwards because of poor strategy.

 

Point 7: Perhaps there are, I don't think you can easily rate these things against each other, but what we do know is that Hussein was pretty bad. I think however, it was important as to where Iraq is geographically. Iraq is in one of the most unstable regions in the world. For comparison, North Korea has China right on top of it to keep it in line.

 

Point 8: Well, everything costs something and why I think there should be a limit on the cost, I think there is a justifiable cost. I think with a better post war strategy, we could have pulled out of Iraq sooner than we did and so it would have cost us less.

 

And that is probably just a bit rambly and poorly written, but it is late, just written a history essay and I am tired.

[Wiltshire Saint]

You're still doing it Saintandy666. Stop it.

Joensuu has provided some excellent points that you are dismissing without any proof. I am now going to spend some time replying to you, and bear in mind it is late and I want to go to bed as I have work in the morning. I am doing this with peace and love because I like you. I wouldn't waste my sleeping time on many other posters, but you are better than the drivel you have posted.

 

Points 1 + 2: I disagree with this, I think Saddam was the kind of guy who had shown in the past he was likely to invade countries in the region(Iran and Kuwait) and with the region being so important to the world, yet also unstable it is entirely faesable that a massive war could have eventually broken out because of one of his actions.

 

Fair enough, he had been involved in conflict, I'll give you that.....but a threat to the West? How? Two incredibly daft points you make (and it does pain me to say that to you, because like I said, I like you) are (a) "the region being so important to the world" - why's that? Why is it important? Are you actually admitting that oil was the reason for war? (b) "a massive war could have eventually broken out..." - Have you not noticed what's been ging on? A massive war has broken out, but not because of Husseins actions.

 

Point 3: I don't think this can ever be proved to be honest, each have caused deaths in the tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands, both are terrible, but I do think that a systemised genoicide is worse than a war and in 10 years time I think the benefit will be seen. The kurds are flourishing now.

 

Can you firstly explain why genocide is worse than war? The end result is the death of innocent civilians. War is about killing people. People die. It's not an accident. The very fact that you have said "caused the deaths of thousands/hundreds of thousands proves you have absolutely no idea how many people Hussin killed or how many have died in the war. So how do you know it can't be proved? You're guessing, and guessing badly.

 

Points 4 and 5 and 6: I do not think this is strictly true, I think in the immediate aftermath of the war(up to 2 or 3 years ago) surveys showed Iraqi support for the Invasion and opposition to terrorism and so on was high, but as the occupation went on and on this wained. More recently, positivity and support for the invasion has been on the rise. I think this is a failure of the after war strategy rather than the war itself. Most Iraqis were unhappy under Saddam.

 

I don't think it was the war that was the problem, what was the problem was how long we stayed there afterwards because of poor strategy.

 

I'm in disbelief at some of these comments. That History essay must have taken it out of you. "opposition to terrorism and so on was high". Saintandy, has there ever been a point when the general public (or, by definition, the victims of terrorism) are not opposed to terrorism? "Surveys showed Iraqi support for the invasion" - firstly show me a survey and, if you can find one, then tell me that you are 100% confident that the survey can be trusted, after all, no one has lied during this whole process have they? No one would think about making stuff up would they? "Most Iraqi's were unhappy under Saddam". Prove it. I don't know how you have gauged Iraqi opinion during the Hussein era but I am interested to know. Or are you believing more information from those trusted people that took us to war?

 

Point 7: Perhaps there are, I don't think you can easily rate these things against each other, but what we do know is that Hussein was pretty bad. I think however, it was important as to where Iraq is geographically. Iraq is in one of the most unstable regions in the world. For comparison, North Korea has China right on top of it to keep it in line.

 

You're somewhat missing the point. Who is to decide that a regime is "pretty bad"? One country may think one thing and another country think the opposite. So who decides who is being invaded? What if we all believed that America was led by someone who was "pretty bad"? Could we go in and instigate regime change? Are there not international organisations which are designed to sort out such issues? Read this quote:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." from here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

 

Point 8: Well, everything costs something and why I think there should be a limit on the cost, I think there is a justifiable cost. I think with a better post war strategy, we could have pulled out of Iraq sooner than we did and so it would have cost us less.

 

How can you limit the cost of a war? You have to keep fighting till you win or pull out and admit defeat, surely? I'm not anexpert on the military, but that seems to make sense to me. How much has the war cost? It depends where you read, but I have seen figures ranging from £4 billion to £7 billion (to the UK, not the USA). The first Gulf war cost about £2 billion. That seems quite a lot of money to me. Imagine what that could have done here in Britain. The entire amount of money being sought by the poorer countries of the world to help tackle climate change is £10 billion (from the rest of the developed world). Well we've almost spent that single handedly through fighting in Iraq.

 

 

And that is probably just a bit rambly and poorly written, but it is late, just written a history essay and I am tired.

 

Now, stop being silly or I'll go off you.

[Johnny Bognor]

Points 1 + 2: I disagree with this, I think Saddam was the kind of guy who had shown in the past he was likely to invade countries in the region(Iran and Kuwait) and with the region being so important to the world, yet also unstable it is entirely faesable that a massive war could have eventually broken out because of one of his actions.

 

Point 3: I don't think this can ever be proved to be honest, each have caused deaths in the tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands, both are terrible, but I do think that a systemised genoicide is worse than a war and in 10 years time I think the benefit will be seen. The kurds are flourishing now.

 

I don't agree with everything you say, but I am happy to back you on points 1-3.

 

Point 1

He made no secret as to his beef with Israel and he has form in terms of lobbing scud missiles into civilian areas of Israel. Although there may be no direct threat to the west, having a go at Israel is certainly an indirect military threat. Otherwise, why did he fire scuds into Israel? As the US (and therefore the west) support the state of Israel, posing a threat to Israel is posing a threat to the west as 'we' would/could get dragged into a major conflict. On the Oil front, he certainly posed a threat - Oil probably has one of the biggest impacts on the western economies and so he certainly had us by the goolies in this respect - that is why he invaded Kuwait afterall. Why are the Royal Navy patrolling the coast off Somalia? Somali pirates do not pose a military threat to the UK, do they?

 

Point 2

He did invade a sovereign country unprovoked (Kuwait), fight a prolonged war with Iran and lob scud missiles at Israel. To describe this as a "moderate threat" is the understatement of the century. I think the intent was there, although he didn't have the capability (as we were told by our beloved labour leader).

 

Point 3

I certainly think genocide is worse than war - certainly from a moral perspective, even if the end result is the same. In war you fight an army who are armed, trained and whose job it is to fight back. That army can always surrender if it is not up to it. War is the result of the failure of politics. Genocide is the politics of deliberately killing unarmed civilians and hence there is a major distinction between the two. To lump them in together is like saying that someone who kills someone in self defence is no better than a murderer - the end result is the same (i.e. someone dies) but there is a clear distinction between the motives for killing. This is the same with War vs Genocide - the motives for the war are to win it, the motives for genocide is to kill people. Big difference IMO

[South Londoner]

Whatever you say about Blair, you could never accuse him and his missus of exploiting their position and connections after he stood down as PM to make a few bob for themselves !!!!!

[Thedelldays]

he went into Iraq to safeguard the oil for us for the future.....like JB says, why else are we constantly off somalia....they dont pose a threat to us what so ever

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I don't agree with everything you say, but I am happy to back you on points 1-3.

 

Point 1

He made no secret as to his beef with Israel and he has form in terms of lobbing scud missiles into civilian areas of Israel. Although there may be no direct threat to the west, having a go at Israel is certainly an indirect military threat. Otherwise, why did he fire scuds into Israel? As the US (and therefore the west) support the state of Israel, posing a threat to Israel is posing a threat to the west as 'we' would/could get dragged into a major conflict. On the Oil front, he certainly posed a threat - Oil probably has one of the biggest impacts on the western economies and so he certainly had us by the goolies in this respect - that is why he invaded Kuwait afterall. Why are the Royal Navy patrolling the coast off Somalia? Somali pirates do not pose a military threat to the UK, do they?

 

Point 2

He did invade a sovereign country unprovoked (Kuwait), fight a prolonged war with Iran and lob scud missiles at Israel. To describe this as a "moderate threat" is the understatement of the century. I think the intent was there, although he didn't have the capability (as we were told by our beloved labour leader).

 

Point 3

I certainly think genocide is worse than war - certainly from a moral perspective, even if the end result is the same. In war you fight an army who are armed, trained and whose job it is to fight back. That army can always surrender if it is not up to it. War is the result of the failure of politics. Genocide is the politics of deliberately killing unarmed civilians and hence there is a major distinction between the two. To lump them in together is like saying that someone who kills someone in self defence is no better than a murderer - the end result is the same (i.e. someone dies) but there is a clear distinction between the motives for killing. This is the same with War vs Genocide - the motives for the war are to win it, the motives for genocide is to kill people. Big difference IMO

 

Points 1&2 were well in the past and were dealt with by the first gulf war. Blair told us that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the West. As many believed at the time this was blatantly untrue. If he posed such an "oil threat" whatever that means why did oil prices only rocket after the US made it clear they were going to invade?

 

Point 3 - This debate is irrelevant as the invasion had nothing to do with genocide. Whilst no doubt Saddam had genocidal tendancies the attacks on the Kurds were well in the past when he was our ally - in fact he likely used weapons supplied by the West. He wasn't engaged in genocide at the time we invaded so it is pretty clear that our invasion had nothing to do with preventing genocide. If it had been a response to genocide/oppression then why didn't we intervene directly in Zimbabwe or Darfur.

 

I keep reading on this thread that we had to do something because the region is so unstable. That's just rediculous. Has the region been more or less unstable since the invasion? The latter has clearly been the case. What could possibly more destablising than an hastily planned invasion without UN backing and without a credible occupation plan?

[Johnny Bognor]

Points 1&2 were well in the past and were dealt with by the first gulf war. Blair told us that Saddam posed an immediate threat to the West. As many believed at the time this was blatantly untrue. If he posed such an "oil threat" whatever that means why did oil prices only rocket after the US made it clear they were going to invade?

 

Do you wholeheartedly trust Gadaffi? Everything he did was well in the past. Saddam was not to be trusted and his continuous mind games with the UN / West did little to win over his foes. Granted, that is no excuse for war and in hindsight Hans Blix (Sp) should have been given more time. Blair and Brown (I include him as he helped finance the operation) were clever enough to play on our fears...and this is wrong. But at the end of the day, Saddam could have played ball and avoided the situation????? His political **** swinging was in itself a provacation as he failed to meet the terms of UN resolutions against him. I think it is a case that both sides were wrong to some extent

 

I keep reading on this thread that we had to do something because the region is so unstable. That's just rediculous. Has the region been more or less unstable since the invasion? The latter has clearly been the case. What could possibly more destablising than an hastily planned invasion without UN backing and without a credible occupation plan?

 

To be fair, the middle east region has been unstable for millenia. As it is Christmas, just reference the bible and you can see that the Jews were under Roman occupation, they hated the samaritans and the like. Even Saladin had to conquer the muslim states in order to organise them into an organised force to take on the Christians in the Holy Lands. Fast forward a few years and our involvement over the last century leaves a lot to be desired.

 

If my memory serves me correctly, 9-11 occured before the invasion of Iraq and whilst the war has clearly made things worse, our meddlings in the affairs over the centuries gives them enough reason to hate us with or without the invasion.

[View From The Top]

If my memory serves me correctly, 9-11 occured before the invasion of Iraq and whilst the war has clearly made things worse, our meddlings in the affairs over the centuries gives them enough reason to hate us with or without the invasion.

 

The problem with events since 2001 and especially since 2003 is that many Muslim moderates have shifted their stance for the worse due to our actions.

 

America, under Bush, were guilty of the hypocrisy of engagement in Iraq whilst ignoring the actions of Israel in Gazza and The West Bank and the Palestinian people in general.

 

The actions of the Bush/Blair axis has made the world a more confused and dangerous place and helped erode the fragile trust in politics.

 

We went to war based on deliberate lies.

[Thedelldays]

VFTT I think you will find that a decade of sanctions against Iraq and constant bombing by clinton was enough to make many muslims in the area hate the west as it was

[View From The Top]

VFTT I think you will find that a decade of sanctions against Iraq and constant bombing by clinton was enough to make many muslims in the area hate the west as it was

 

 

Many, yes, I know but nothing like the extent that it was through to last year as Iraq was pulled apart.

 

It's starting to calm down again but there is an awful lot of rage still there.

[Thedelldays]

Many, yes, I know but nothing like the extent that it was through to last year as Iraq was pulled apart.

 

It's starting to calm down again but there is an awful lot of rage still there.

I have been to Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi...and there is a tad bit of hatred, yes..ooops

 

also, there are alot of people that are very optimistic now saddam is gone from the region...

 

I guess it all falls down what religious side you are on...

[View From The Top]

I have been to Iraq, Oman, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi...and there is a tad bit of hatred, yes..ooops

 

As have I, both before and after 2003 (Iraq excluded since)

 

also, there are alot of people that are very optimistic now saddam is gone from the region...

 

And just as many keeping a very wary eye on Iran

 

I guess it all falls down what religious side you are on...

 

The most extremist, religiously, of all the countries in that region is Saudi. It sponsors terror but is our ally due to oil so maybe religion isn't the driver, but money, wealth, status and power are.

[Thedelldays]

Iran has more influence in the region now Saddam has gone (ironically)...

 

they have huge influnce on the shiite muslim population in Iraq, something Saddam kept a lid on...

 

ultimately alot of the tension in that area are down to the UK (historically)..

when we carved up the region we simply drew straight lines for borders and it seemed not take religious beliefs and ideology into consideration..

 

and then take land away from another set of people and lob in a few thousand Jews there as we all felt a bit guilty..

 

I know that is a simplistic view of it....but I guess all through history, we always seem to want to meddle with the region...

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Do you wholeheartedly trust Gadaffi? Everything he did was well in the past. Saddam was not to be trusted and his continuous mind games with the UN / West did little to win over his foes. Granted, that is no excuse for war and in hindsight Hans Blix (Sp) should have been given more time. Blair and Brown (I include him as he helped finance the operation) were clever enough to play on our fears...and this is wrong. But at the end of the day, Saddam could have played ball and avoided the situation????? His political **** swinging was in itself a provacation as he failed to meet the terms of UN resolutions against him. I think it is a case that both sides were wrong to some extent

 

 

What's Gaddafi got to do with it, we're not about to invade Libya. It's not about trusting someone it's about assessing whether someone is a credible threat. It didn't take much to see through Saddam's posturing. Of course he was going to talk big, he was surrounded by enemies who conceivably would have pounced if he shown weakness (e.g. Iran) and wanted to keep the Kurds (amongst others quiet). The fact that millions of people publically showed opposition to invasion shows that hindsight wasn't that necessary.

[Wade Garrett]

So Blair, and his government thought that regime change was important, and that WMDs was a convenient way to topple this despot and justify a war.

 

I look forward to WMDs being found in Zimbabwe and North Korea then......

[Saintandy666]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm Theres your survey of positivity in the aftermath of the war. I will need to refind the other ones I found.

 

I appreciate your time taken to reply to me, wiltshire, but I'm still going to retain my opinion that the world and espcially the middle eastern region is a much better and safer place without Saddam Hussein. But apart from saying that, I'm going to retreat, but thankyou for that reply.

[Hamilton Saint]

Our former PM, Jean Chretien, sensed the mood of the Canadian public (well, he read the poll results!), a definite majority of whom were opposed to participating in the "coalition of the willing", and decided that Canada would not be assisting in the invasion of Iraq.

 

Tony Blair, on the other hand, in the face of a similar reluctance from the British public, made the opposite decision. It was my impression that he was ingratiating himself with Bush in order to advance the U.K.'s economic and strategic position vis-a-vis the Americans. I think he also had a Thatcherite/Churchillian moment, and persuaded himself thast there were moral/religious reasons that prompted his support for the invasion. Man, was he wrong!

[Sheaf Saint]

Interesting piece in the Independent today...

 

http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/witnesses-for-the-prosecution-how-blair-is-suffering-trial-by-chilcot-1844259.html

Edited 18 December, 2009 by Sheaf Saint

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

SaintAndy666 - should we also invade and occupy Zimbabwe and Sudan?

 

Your point might have a long term term truth to it but it's hard to argue that Iraq has been safer and better in the 5 years post-invasion. The respected Lancet estimated that the best part of a million people have died directly or indirectly because of the war or post-invasion chaos. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calculated that the Iraq situation has cost the West literally trillions of US$. The UN meanwhile asserts that the war was illegal - this is backed up by many a expert in International Law. No one will shed a tear for Saddam but that doesn't justify what we did or the way in which it was done.

[Saintandy666]

SaintAndy666 - should we also invade and occupy Zimbabwe and Sudan?

 

Your point might have a long term term truth to it but it's hard to argue that Iraq has been safer and better in the 5 years post-invasion. The respected Lancet estimated that the best part of a million people have died directly or indirectly because of the war or post-invasion chaos. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calculated that the Iraq situation has cost the West literally trillions of US$. The UN meanwhile asserts that the war was illegal - this is backed up by many a expert in International Law. No one will shed a tear for Saddam but that doesn't justify what we did or the way in which it was done.

 

If you read through my posts I say a lot that I am glad Saddam was gone, but not necessarily that the war was the best option or has gone very well in achieving this aim. In other words I think we rushed into the war without a real plan as to what to do afterwards. It is only because Saddam is no longer in power I am happy to give my support for the war.

 

Sudan and Zimbabwe are in much less precarious places in the world in relation to our security and the worlds security and while Mugabe is awful, I do not think war is a viable option because I think dimplomacy has already been shown to be able to bring him down a notch. As for the Janjaweed... well, I don't think we(as in the west) could ever reason with them. There probably needs to be some power sharing thing going on like there should be between the Taliban and the Afghanstani government in Afghanistan. Then you can consider other options once a less violent situation is established. I never think war should be the first option, but sometimes it is a necessary option, and probably one we took too soon in Iraq, but I think in the end it will improve situations in that country.

 

Something for people to consider. Thomas Aquinas' just war theory...

 

Conditions for war to be acceptable:

 

1. A war has got to be started by a government. No private armies...

 

2. A war must have a just cause. I.e self defence or preventing a greater evil from continuing or occuring.

 

3. A war must be for the greater good and law and order must be restored in the aftermath.

 

4. A war has got to be the last resort(the one that Iraq probably failed at).

 

5. A war must be fought proportionally and no citizens should be killed unecessarily.

 

I'd be interested to hear how many of these conditions people thought the war in Iraq fulfilled.

[Hamilton Saint]

If you read through my posts I say a lot that I am glad Saddam was gone, but not necessarily that the war was the best option or has gone very well in achieving this aim. In other words I think we rushed into the war without a real plan as to what to do afterwards. It is only because Saddam is no longer in power I am happy to give my support for the war.

 

Sudan and Zimbabwe are in much less precarious places in the world in relation to our security and the worlds security and while Mugabe is awful, I do not think war is a viable option because I think dimplomacy has already been shown to be able to bring him down a notch. As for the Janjaweed... well, I don't think we(as in the west) could ever reason with them. There probably needs to be some power sharing thing going on like there should be between the Taliban and the Afghanstani government in Afghanistan. Then you can consider other options once a less violent situation is established. I never think war should be the first option, but sometimes it is a necessary option, and probably one we took too soon in Iraq, but I think in the end it will improve situations in that country.

 

Something for people to consider. Thomas Aquinas' just war theory...

 

Conditions for war to be acceptable:

 

1. A war has got to be started by a government. No private armies...

 

2. A war must have a just cause. I.e self defence or preventing a greater evil from continuing or occuring.

 

3. A war must be for the greater good and law and order must be restored in the aftermath.

 

4. A war has got to be the last resort(the one that Iraq probably failed at).

 

5. A war must be fought proportionally and no citizens should be killed unecessarily.

 

I'd be interested to hear how many of these conditions people thought the war in Iraq fulfilled.

 

1. Too many private American contractors involved - e.g., Blackwater security.

 

2. Bush claimed it was partly self-defence in response to 9/11, but that was fallacious; he also claimed it was preventing Hussein's oppression of elements in his own country. The latter argument is somewhat true, but the aftermath brought other detrimental effects. Which of the two situations are worse?

 

3. Law and order has not been returned to the country. It was evident pretty quickly after the invasion that the war-planners had not considered how to deal with the post-war situation.

 

4. The Bush administration rushed into the war - definitely not war as last resort.

 

5. A concern for civilians may have been exercised during the fighting but not during the post-war period.

[Saintandy666]

1. Too many private American contractors involved - e.g., Blackwater security.

 

2. Bush claimed it was partly self-defence in response to 9/11, but that was fallacious; he also claimed it was preventing Hussein's oppression of elements in his own country. The latter argument is somewhat true, but the aftermath brought other detrimental effects. Which of the two situations are worse?

 

3. Law and order has not been returned to the country. It was evident pretty quickly after the invasion that the war-planners had not considered how to deal with the post-war situation.

 

4. The Bush administration rushed into the war - definitely not war as last resort.

 

5. A concern for civilians may have been exercised during the fighting but not during the post-war period.

 

Hmmmm, well, I don't know much about how much private american stuff was involved in the fighting but as far as I am aware the war was started by a state, and declared on another state. I think the war did stop a greater evil, obviously in my opinion. We did try to restore law and order, it's not like we just got out straight away... Ok, I'll give you we rushed in quite quick, so perhaps not that one ticked. And I don't believe we have used unecessary force either, or killed any civillians unecessarily, but of course I am placing my trust here in the forces of my country and other countries so you can never be sure. Just my take on it all there.

[Hamilton Saint]

Hmmmm, well, I don't know much about how much private american stuff was involved in the fighting but as far as I am aware the war was started by a state, and declared on another state. I think the war did stop a greater evil, obviously in my opinion. We did try to restore law and order, it's not like we just got out straight away... Ok, I'll give you we rushed in quite quick, so perhaps not that one ticked. And I don't believe we have used unecessary force either, or killed any civillians unecessarily, but of course I am placing my trust here in the forces of my country and other countries so you can never be sure. Just my take on it all there.

 

Blackwater Worldwide is a private corporation involved in military and security activities. They have been linked to controversial activities in Iraq.

 

Some basic info here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

Edited 18 December, 2009 by Hamilton Saint
spelling mistake

[Saintandy666]

Blackwater Worldwide is a private corporation involved in military and security activities. They have been linked to controversial activities in Iraq.

 

Some basic info here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

 

Well, perhaps a partial failure on that one then? As they would still be under order from the US government.

[Hamilton Saint]

I found this quote from Tony Blair in the newspaper today, under the heading "Thought Du Jour":

 

 

"The art of leadership is saying no, not saying yes. It is very easy to say 'yes'."

 

 

 

[That's why he said "yes" to Bush?!]

[Sheaf Saint]

There's absolutely no blood what-so-ever on Blair's hands over the murder/assisted suicide of Dr D Kelly. Oh no.

 

Just in case anybody was still in any doubt......

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151859102

Edited 25 January, 2010 by Sheaf Saint

[Ponty]

Page Not Found.

[Sheaf Saint]

Page Not Found.

 

Try now. I saw what I did wrong.

[Ponty]

Cheers...

 

Real "double-agent" stuff, isn't it?

[bungle]

Am watching a bit of the inquiry live on BBC on-line (Blair on all today). Hopefully there will be edited highlights later!

[Ash]

Am watching a bit of the inquiry live on BBC on-line (Blair on all today). Hopefully there will be edited highlights later!

I'm trying to watch it but I keep being sick in my mouth.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I think I must be the only person in the UK that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[saintfully]

I think I must be the only person in the UK that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I think you must be too.

[hypochondriac]

I think I must be the only person in the UK that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I agree. Don't actually mind him. Kept the Tories out for ages so he's alright by me!

[badgerx16]

That's why he said "yes" to Bush?!

I thought it was more "Oh yes, George..yes, yes, YEEESSSS!"

[John B]

I agree. Don't actually mind him. Kept the Tories out for ages so he's alright by me!

 

Me too but a bit of a Tory himself I feel is Mr Blair

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Me too but a bit of a Tory himself I feel is Mr Blair

 

Well he kept them out but actually he also let them back in and they could be in for a long time.

Blair shifted this whole country to the right

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I agree. Don't actually mind him. Kept the Tories out for ages so he's alright by me!

 

yes because that stopped the Tories allowing inequality to grow massively, tuition fees to be introduced and the country taken into a disasterous illegal war....oh

[INFLUENCED.COM]

I think I must be the only person in the UK that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I feel it is a shame that he will be remembered more for his relationship with Bush than everything else he achieved whilst in office, too long in the job perhaps ?

 

Bet he is still in touch with his old mate Mandy who is one of, if not the, most powerful man in politics at the minute.

Edited 30 January, 2010 by INFLUENCED.COM

[buctootim]

I feel it is a shame that he will be remembered more for his relationship with Bush than everything else he achieved whilst in office, too long in the job perhaps ?

 

Happens to them all in the end - good running the country for the first few years and then get grand ideas on being active on the world stage and start to lose the domestic plot. All PMs should be elected and limited to two terms of office like in other countries imo.

[JackFrost]

I agree. Don't actually mind him. Kept the Tories out for ages so he's alright by me!

 

Eh?

 

He ran a Tory government that called themselves "New Labour".

 

Watching him trying to defend the Iraq war has to be one of the most cringeworthy pieces of television for many years. Half of the justifications he is using now (and didn't use just before the invasion first happened) are illegal under international war.

 

Him and Bush were one of the most dangerous world leaders in modern history. A pairing who condemned Iraq (and now Iran) as terrorist havens with mere speculation and fabricated evidence, whilst giving their whole backing and support to an apartheid-practising, despicable Israeli regime, whose human rights atrocities currently rivalled those committed under Saddam