Is Toady Blair the ANTI CHRIST?

bertiebowl

You know its funny, for the first 5 years or so, I was really a Tony blair fan, but since this was on Iraq business I've been wondering.....

We've had Blair's goverment bomb and blast Basra to bits (war criminal behavior?) not to mention over hype "intelligence" reports to justify the war itself.

Then after tony gives his suck ass bulls**t speech to the yanks, "believe in your destiny - freedom, blah, blah blah", an innocent civil servant is left to the wolves.

Then, when said civil servant apparently tops himself, the Blairite gov spends all its time spinning that, wait for it, it was the BBC's fault the guy did himself in!

I tell ya anti-christ or wha?

dahamsta

No.

I see the yanks have got their fall guy lined up now too.

adam

BKtje

that link doesnt take you to anywhere informative dahamasta unforunately.

Headcase

i've lost all respect for Blair, thought he had principles and his own mind.
but know he's just Bush's lapdog.

and he does kinda resemble Sam Neill(Damien) in Omen3 or 4, not sure which.

dahamsta

Bugger. Try this instead.

Clinton has come out in the meantime and said that 'Everybody makes mistakes', so I guess that makes it alright then.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by dahamsta
'Everybody makes mistakes'

Not everyone invades a country and kills people.

mike65

Bertie its good to see you maintain the boards tradition of rushing to judgment! Blair is a flawed political leader, nothing much more.
He did'nt kill Dr Kelly dispite what some would like to think. Maybe there are factors involved there that we know nothing of. I'd sooner wait for the inquiry to reach its conclusions before making any final judgment.

As for Iraq, well its still work in progress, the deaths of Saddams sons is a step in the right direction. Saddam wont be for this world
for much longer and maybe things will finally start moving quicker
in the right direction. I'm not aware the Basra was blown to bits by the UK military, as it was'nt.

ppl in Britian will re-elect or kick out Blairs government on issues like schools and education not Iraq.

Mike.

Hobbes

Bill Clinton is just taking the p!ss though. Seriously, nothing annoys Bush fans more then telling them Clinton was a good president.

I have yet to figure out why both side are so at each others throat.. yet when they both have middle of the road control the US actually does well.

Biffa Bacon

Tony Blair is a progressive human rights activist and peace campaigner who deserves our support.

Sparks

Tony Blair is a progressive human rights activist and peace campaigner who deserves our support.

Please tell me that there's an Ignore list on this board?
Please?

Sparks

Hoo-ray! There is an Ignore List!

Paddy20

NO, Mr Tony Blair is not the ANTI CHRIST?. He is a human being trying imho too do his best in an impossible situation. That of being Prime Minister of the UK. Not a job too relish.

Why rush in too judgment againt someone who is stymied by the - official secrets acts in the UK where it is unlikely the truth can be revealed for something like 30 Years?.. as far as I can remember. I certainly am pleased it is not Saddam who is British Prime Minister.

As I have already stated on this forum before. Tony Blair would have resigned as Prime Minister long ago, and I would not blame him, but for his total commitment to resolving the Northern Ireland issue!. He is admittedly exhausted, and practically burnt out, but he is still in there holding his corner despite his critics and traitors within his own cabinet.

However, I have little doubt that he will be handing over the positon to someone else as soon he feels he has achieved his main objectives, or perhaps his health may force him too retire before this.

One thing is for sure. As with all wars the truth will not emerge for many years. When in my opinion his critics may find he is not as bad as some are trying too paint him.

Paddy20;)

Sparks

Paddy, methinks you're giving Blair more credit than even he is asking for.
He pushed for a war in the face of the largest civil protests in UK history, and now the evidence is shown to be the horse hockey most people knew it was.
Time for heads to roll. Preferably right into the ICC.
Would make a good precedent to set - "Attention world leaders. Screw around like that again, and you won't have immunity. Time to cop onto yourselves and get down to the fecking job."

ReefBreak

I like Tony Blair. I respect the fact that he's stuck to his guns regarding Iraq, despite what's happened since. (Off-topic, the left seems to think it'll take a week-and-a-half to turn Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy). But more importantly, from an Irish point of view, he's put more effort into the Norn Iron peace process than any other UK PM. It's still not working up there, but the blame for that can be put at the feet of most of the political parties in the north. But at least they're not killling each other any more.

As for the title - Is Tony Blair the Anti-Christ? Such a juvenile statement. Anti-Christ? Try Saddam Hussein (a modern-day Stalin), Osama Bin Laden (murders simply because of religious fanaticism and a hatred of western material values), Kim Chong-il, Robert Mugabe. These are people that have deliberately murdered thousands of innocents without remorse. But the left decide to hate Blair because it's an easy thing to do..."Why can't they just leave Saddam/Mugabe/Bin Laden alone?"

gandalf

Reefbreak it could be argued that Blair and the real anti-christ Bush have murdered thousands by going to war by manufacturing proof of WMD's now couldn't it.

Gandalf.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by gandalf
Reefbreak it could be argued that Blair and the real anti-christ Bush have murdered thousands by going to war by manufacturing proof of WMD's now couldn't it.

Gandalf.

IMO their only mistake was harping on about WMDs (even if there's still no proof that they don't exist in Iraq). They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history (1,000,000 of his own people) and his destabilising effect on the whole region. And they would have been right.

Sparks

IMO their only mistake was harping on about WMDs (even if there's still no proof that they don't exist in Iraq). They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history (1,000,000 of his own people) and his destabilising effect on the whole region. And they would have been right.

So when are they going to prosecute the US presidents that supported Saddam and paid for the weapons he used on his own people?

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
They should have put more emphasis on simply removing Saddam because of his murderous history ..... and his destabilising effect on the whole region.

This creates a precedent of removing everyone you don't like. How about all the nice (capitalist) authoritarian regimes in the southern hemisphere that the USA has propped up over the years. Fair enough remove the hate-mongers and murderers, but be consistant in it.

Originally posted by ReefBreak
1,000,000 of his own people

And Rumsfled killed how many millions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq? Surely he should be removed for destabilising the world?

bertiebowl

I like Tony Blair.................., he's put more effort into the Norn Iron peace process than any other UK PM. It's still not working up there, but the blame for that can be put at the feet of most of the political parties in the north. But at least they're not killling each other any more.

Sure tony is softening them up north for the day london ditches Norn Ireland and all its problems onto the Republic....Blair wants out and who could blame him??

Originally posted by Sparks
So when are they going to prosecute the US presidents that supported Saddam and paid for the weapons he used on his own people?

That was commerce, sparks, just like the last gulf war itself was.
They didn't tell them to use the weapons the way they did, just as allowing companies to manufacture and sell cigarettes (death toll equals??) doesn't mean they have a responsibility there either.
If the states govt want to continue putting their forces in the line of fire, untill whatever job it is they have at hand is by them considered done, well then thats a matter for them.
It's their forces that are getting killed.
Regrettable as that is, I'm not sorry at the over all outcome of the Iraq campaign, ie the ending of a regime which if left unchecked would have continued to torture maim and kill thousands on an on-going basis.
Based on the regular findings of mass graves in Iraq, I don't see how one can judge the lives of those killed during the last Iraq war to be worth any more or less than the lives of those who have been saved by the ending of Sadams evil regime.
My regret is that these kind of regimes exist at all and that action couldn't be taken in all cases by the U.N to end injustice without particular countries on the UNSC putting their own interests first when deciding whether action is necessary.
mm

Sparks

Nope man.
If I sell you a gun, and you kill someone with it, that's one thing.
If I sell you several more guns after you kill several people with the first one, though, that's something else and to claim that I'd have no responsibility would be assinine.

Likewise, the US funded Saddam knowing full well what he was doing, and they bear equal responsibility for everyone killed.

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope man.
If I sell you a gun, and you kill someone with it, that's one thing.
If I sell you several more guns after you kill several people with the first one, though, that's something else and to claim that I'd have no responsibility would be assinine.

Likewise, the US funded Saddam knowing full well what he was doing, and they bear equal responsibility for everyone killed.

Just as assinine then as allowing companies to sell cigarettes...
When you say, the U.S funded Saddam, you mean U.S regimes in the past, don't you?
While the current one, contains some relic's from past governments that encouraged Saddam, I don't think you can say they have er... supported him recently?
So I presume, you want those in past U.S regimes to answer now for actions then?

Regarding the rights or wrongs of the last Gulf War, there certainly are to my mind specific questions to be answered regarding the justifications used for that war.
But also to my mind,if one were to ask Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes on account of their last campaign, one would have to compare the value and importance of lives lost in a campaign Saddam could have avoided, towards the thousands of lives that would most certainly be lost also if he was to be left unchecked.
That in my book would be wrong, but then it's only an opinion and opinions differ.
mm

Sparks

Just as assinine then as allowing companies to sell cigarettes...

And who said that I thought that that wasn't immoral?

When you say, the U.S funded Saddam, you mean U.S regimes in the past, don't you?

Indeed, including Rumsfeld who merrily sat down with Hussein and signed over $300 million to him less than a fortnight after halajba.

While the current one, contains some relic's from past governments that encouraged Saddam, I don't think you can say they have er... supported him recently?
So I presume, you want those in past U.S regimes to answer now for actions then?

Unnecessary, the current administration has more than enough on it's record to damn them on their own merits. But even if I ceded your point, isn't it time that Jr said that past administrations shared in the responsibility?

Regarding the rights or wrongs of the last Gulf War, there certainly are to my mind specific questions to be answered regarding the justifications used for that war.

And it's execution...

But also to my mind,if one were to ask Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes on account of their last campaign, one would have to compare the value and importance of lives lost in a campaign Saddam could have avoided,

How could he have avoided it when the decision to invade was made two years ago before any of the "diplomacy" began?
Turns out, Hussein probably knew what he was up against before any of the rest of us knew what was going on behind the scenes.
Well, it's not that surprising I suppose, given who originally hired and trained him...

towards the thousands of lives that would most certainly be lost also if he was to be left unchecked.
That in my book would be wrong, but then it's only an opinion and opinions differ.

Again, there's that assumption that there were only two options to choose from.
Which is false.

Originally posted by Sparks
And who said that I thought that that wasn't immoral?

I never said that,I am just pointing out that, every country that I know of allows companies to sell cigarettes, causing thousands of deaths each year.
Those are lives lost too for which governments must share some blame for...
But I don't see too many governments banning cigarette sales, yet by not doing so, they are in effect promoting lung cancer and thousands of deaths each year.
As one life is as important as the next, why not call for an international court for that too?

Unnecessary, the current administration has more than enough on it's record to damn them on their own merits. But even if I ceded your point, isn't it time that Jr said that past administrations shared in the responsibility?

It would be reasonable, yes, but you are talking about politicians who want to be re-elected.
To expect them to cut off their noses to spite their faces would be an unreasonable expectation.

How could he have avoided it when the decision to invade was made two years ago before any of the "diplomacy" began?
Turns out, Hussein probably knew what he was up against before any of the rest of us knew what was going on behind the scenes.
Well, it's not that surprising I suppose, given who originally hired and trained him...

Again, there's that assumption that there were only two options to choose from.
Which is false.

I can't believe, I'm having to put this position to you considering what is known about the rule of Saddam and his henchmen, but he could have avoided war, by running his country, more like The President of France does his country, than the way Saddam actually ran Iraq.
He was in power for over thirty years and had the option of running the country ethically rather than like a tyrannical egotistical monster.
He wasn't forced to do the latter by anyone, he chose that path himself.
mm

Paddy20

I am finding it more and more difficult to follow the logic of the majority of the postings on this thread, which has the title:- Is Toady Blair the ANT CHRIST?.

As I stated before on this thread, imho NO he is not!.

Maybe if we all looked closer to home in Ireland we would find plenty of more obvious ANTI CHRIST type public and private individuals?..

Paddy20;)

Sparks

As one life is as important as the next, why not call for an international court for that too?

Because the companies are being tried in national courts.
International courts are not needed.
For governments, however, they are needed.

It would be reasonable, yes, but you are talking about politicians who want to be re-elected.
To expect them to cut off their noses to spite their faces would be an unreasonable expectation.

It's unreasonable to expect ethical behaviour from those that make the rules?
If so, it's not just unreasonable but downright wrong to expect others to follow those rules.

I can't believe, I'm having to put this position to you considering what is known about the rule of Saddam and his henchmen, but he could have avoided war, by running his country, more like The President of France does his country, than the way Saddam actually ran Iraq.
He was in power for over thirty years and had the option of running the country ethically rather than like a tyrannical egotistical monster.
He wasn't forced to do the latter by anyone, he chose that path himself.

Irrelevant.
We're not arguing whether or not he acted ethically.
We're arguing that:
1) The actions of the US were unethical, and
2) There were more than two courses of action regarding Saddam (the take him or leave him options)

Because the companies are being tried in national courts.
International courts are not needed.
For governments, however, they are needed

I presume you mean they are needed for war crimes, why not for allowing cigarette sales also as to be fair both actions encourage premature deaths.
Governments could ban cigarette sales altogether,just like they could, arms sales to irresponsible regimes.
It's not the smokers fault that cigarettes are enjoyable and addictive...
In that case by your logic they are just as culpable, in allowing lung cancer deaths via cigarette companies as they are, for allowing civilian deaths via Arms company sales.
So basically every government in the world should be on trial...
One life is as equal as the next,and actions taken or not taken which effectively sentence living people unnecessarily to death are the same, unless one believes,that one human life means more than another.

Irrelevant.
We're not arguing whether or not he acted ethically.
We're arguing that:
1) The actions of the US were unethical, and
2) There were more than two courses of action regarding Saddam (the take him or leave him options)

How is it irrelevant , for me to state that , a monster like Saddam could have had a different fate, if he had behaved like a reasonable leader such as , a President of France??
It's reasonable to assume that, he and his countrymen and women would have had a better life if he had behaved , in a reasonable fashion during his tenure, and there probably would have been no war.
It was his choice and that of his misguided followers.

It's unreasonable to expect ethical behaviour from those that make the rules?

It is reasonable.
But you hardly expect a politician , going for re-election to admit his wrongs now do you,and you hardly expect that of Bush.
Having said that, you don't have to tell me, where right and wrong is in any politician especially Bush.
If I had a vote there I would pass my judgement based on the facts known to me, and not on the spin of the candidate or on what that candidate neglects to discuss or admit.
I use the same logic at the ballot box here at home as do you no doubt.
But all I said there, was I've never seen a politician to be the first to talk about anything thats not good in his/her record.
It would be unreasonable to expect Bush or Blair to do so when seeking re-election,thats politics.
They will bring up their oppositions bad points and vice versa but not their own.
The very fact that we are discussing these subjects with such wide knowledge on this board wrt domestic and foreign politics just shows how informed we are.
That information and our own interpretation thereof will usually be the winner, not the corrupt politician, in the case where the electorate refuses to endorse him or her.
While you mightn't exclusively agree with me, do you see where I am coming from , to my mind on what I would perceive to be the reality of politics as opposed to a perfect world of politics?

Oh for the perfect world... we probably aint ever going to achieve it..*sigh*
Anyhow Chin up...
Best get on with it and make what little improvements to it, our meagre human existance allows us to...
I bid you good night for now..., but should you wish, I'll continue tomorrow...:)
mm

Xhen

According to research done by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the largest suppliers of arms to Iraq from 1973 - 1990 (the start of the first Gulf War) were Russia (57%), France (13%), and China (13%). American arms sales to Iraq during that same period were 1% - approximately the same percentage as Denmark.

The US and Iraq have never had a particularly close economic or military relationship - certainly nothing like Saddam had with the old Soviet Union or France. There was a brief period in the early '80's when military intelligence was provided to Iraq during its war with Iran because the Ayatollah Khomeini was considered to be a bigger threat to the region. Civilian helicopters were sold to Iraq during that time but there were no major arms sales made by the US to Iraq. You only have to look at the propenderance of Russian and French weapons and hardware used by Iraq during the Iranian war and the two Gulf wars to know who Saddam's primary arms suppliers were. The United States doesn't build T-72 tanks, AK-47s, or Mirage jets.

The myth that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.

Sparks

I presume you mean they are needed for war crimes, why not for allowing cigarette sales also as to be fair both actions encourage premature deaths.

Two reasons. Well, several, but two main ones:
1) Legally, trying a government's actions using it's own courts is difficult. The ICC was set up for that reason. For example, can you see Mugabe being tried in Zimbabwe?
2) In a war, you get shot and have little or no choice in the matter. If you get lung cancer from cigarettes, then (unless it came from secondary smoke), you had to buy the things. There was a choice involved.

So could you try to pick a more credible topic for a disingenous argument to go off on a tangent with?

How is it irrelevant , for me to state that , a monster like Saddam could have had a different fate, if he had behaved like a reasonable leader such as , a President of France??

Because we were arguing about how other people behaved, not how he behaved.

But you hardly expect a politician , going for re-election to admit his wrongs now do you,and you hardly expect that of Bush.

No, but I regard Bush as a criminal and wouldn't vote for him even if I had a vote in the US elections.

It would be unreasonable to expect Bush or Blair to do so when seeking re-election,thats politics.

Indeed. Which is why I don't see why he doesn't point out that past administrations caused the problem.
After all, that way he could take credit for "fixing" the problem :rolleyes:
God, I need a shower just for thinking that up....

While you mightn't exclusively agree with me, do you see where I am coming from , to my mind on what I would perceive to be the reality of politics as opposed to a perfect world of politics?

Indeed. Which is one of the fundamental reasons why I think we require direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy - because even I didn't see Bush doing this kind of thing, nor would I have thought Ahern would have involved us by giving logistical support - but they did and we found ourselves without legal recourse to prevent it.
That's something we need to fix.

Best get on with it and make what little improvements to it, our meagre human existance allows us to...

I've said it before. The one change I would make, if I had the ability, would be to change the constitution to give the electorate the right to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue by producing a petition with 4% of the electorate's signatures.
That's it. One change.
And it's been tested for the last hundred years in Switzerland too.
I'd say it was well within our meagre human means, no?

Originally posted by Sparks
Two reasons. Well, several, but two main ones:
1) Legally, trying a government's actions using it's own courts is difficult. The ICC was set up for that reason. For example, can you see Mugabe being tried in Zimbabwe?
2) In a war, you get shot and have little or no choice in the matter. If you get lung cancer from cigarettes, then (unless it came from secondary smoke), you had to buy the things. There was a choice involved.

So could you try to pick a more credible topic for a disingenous argument to go off on a tangent with?

Well an international court to try the governments that allow the cigarette sales then??
You may have had to choose to buy the things, but you would have less choice if governments banned their sale.
Oh yes you'd still get them, same as you'd still get arms if ,your corrupt regime wanted them when sales to said government were banned , but not as easy and in both cases we'd all be better off... whats disingenous about saying that?

Because we were arguing about how other people behaved, not how he behaved.

Sparks you misunderstand me.
You dismissed my assertion, as irrelevant, that there would be no Iraq war if Sadam had behaved like a reasonable leader such as the President of France during his tenure.
Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

No, but I regard Bush as a criminal and wouldn't vote for him even if I had a vote in the US elections.

Fair enough, you'd never get me to argue with you there, except maybe on the level of anxiety he causes me vis a vis certain other "leaders", Mugabe being one of them.

Regarding direct democracy, you are entitled to your opinion on that.
I wouldn't be a fan of how it might work on this island though...
There are too many "Mildred Fox's" who wouldn't be long wearing our shoes out with their constant gathering up of the 4% needed to get us to the polls on some fundamentalist issue or other.
Other than that I personally don't find the idea objectionable.
night, night now...and I mean it this time..untill tomorrow:D
mm

Sparks

Sparks you misunderstand me.
You dismissed my assertion, as irrelevant, that there would be no Iraq war if Sadam had behaved like a reasonable leader such as the President of France during his tenure.

No. I dismissed it as incorrect. Because Wolfowitz stated, in a public interview, that the decision to invade Iraq was taken on 9/13/01.

Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

As I said, that's incorrect.

There are too many "Mildred Fox's" who wouldn't be long wearing our shoes out with their constant gathering up of the 4% needed to get us to the polls on some fundamentalist issue or other.

Ah, that implies the Ahern definition of "binding referendum" though, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
No. I dismissed it as incorrect. Because Wolfowitz stated, in a public interview, that the decision to invade Iraq was taken on 9/13/01.

oh my sleepy head...
Saddam was in power acting the maniac for over thirty years,instead of governing in the way the President of France was...
Theres no way, that if he had run his country like France was run, that the U.S would have had any invasion there.
It just wouldn't have been possible.
No justification could have existed or been invented.

Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

As I said, that's incorrect.

For you to state that that could be incorrect, you would have to show me that, Bush could have got support domestically for an invasion of Iraq if President Saddam had been running his country in a reasonable fashion such as the French president does his.
Saddam was ultimately the author of his own destiny there and must share some of the blame for his ultimate downfall.
He could have avoided that.
Regarding direct democracy again, when you say:

Ah, that implies the Ahern definition of "binding referendum" though, doesn't it?

I'd like to point out , that I believe fundamentally in peoples rights to change their mind on any issue, whether they asked for something in a referendum or not.
To my mind theres an inherent lack of democracy in denying that right.
mm

Sparks

No justification could have existed or been invented.

That's a bit naieve, isn't it? After all, a non-existant justification was invented. The point is that the decision to invade was made just under two years ago. The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

Bush could have got support domestically for an invasion of Iraq

Why would he need such support? For a start, he didn't have it (there were more people protesting inside the US than outside it). Add to that the kneejerking from 9/11 and he could have ordered an invasion of Sweden...

Saddam was ultimately the author of his own destiny there and must share some of the blame for his ultimate downfall.
He could have avoided that.

That does presuppose that the US only goes after "bad" rulers. Which, I suppose is true - if you let the US decide who's a "bad" ruler and who isn't...
It's just that they've got awful judgement in such things.

I'd like to point out , that I believe fundamentally in peoples rights to change their mind on any issue, whether they asked for something in a referendum or not.
To my mind theres an inherent lack of democracy in denying that right.

True enough. But we tend to have a binding referendum to settle such issues, at least for a few years. And remember that 4% of the electorate is actually rather a lot of people.

Sparks

Originally posted by Xhen
According to research done by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the largest suppliers of arms to Iraq from 1973 - 1990 (the start of the first Gulf War) were Russia (57%), France (13%), and China (13%). American arms sales to Iraq during that same period were 1% - approximately the same percentage as Denmark.

Xhen, you forgot one small tiny detail.
The US may not have sold Iraq many arms - but they did give them a lot of cash.
Remember that sit-down that Rumsfeld had with Saddam after Halajba? Rumsfeld didn't bring a shipping crate full of nerve gas as a present - he gave him $300 million to buy more arms with.

The US and Iraq have never had a particularly close economic or military relationship - certainly nothing like Saddam had with the old Soviet Union or France.

Crap. No particularly close relationship? The CIA hired and trained Saddam in '59 to assassinate the then-prime-minister of Iraq. When he failed (and managed to shoot himself in the process), they smuggled him out of Iraq and hept him in a series of safe houses for nearly three years until the assassination was successfully carried out by another assassin, and then they smuggled him back into Iraq.

There was a brief period in the early '80's when military intelligence was provided to Iraq during its war with Iran because the Ayatollah Khomeini was considered to be a bigger threat to the region. Civilian helicopters were sold to Iraq during that time but there were no major arms sales made by the US to Iraq. You only have to look at the propenderance of Russian and French weapons and hardware used by Iraq during the Iranian war and the two Gulf wars to know who Saddam's primary arms suppliers were. The United States doesn't build T-72 tanks, AK-47s, or Mirage jets.

"Here's the latest intel Saddam, and whoops! Would you look at that, I guess the cleaning lady left that cheque for $300 million in there along with a catalog from Dassault! Must get her to stop doing that!"
:rolleyes:

The myth that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax.

"No, Mr. President, I give you my word, we won't try to produce 80,000 litres of anthrax. We just want to learn how not to get anthrax from all these damn Iranians..."

Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides.

Not to ridicule you further Xhen, but Sarin isn't DDT or mustard gas. It's a damn sight harder to make (and harder still to make without killing yourself and everyone in the building).

European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.

And they paid in rubles, did they?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
That's a bit naieve, isn't it? After all, a non-existant justification was invented. The point is that the decision to invade was made just under two years ago. The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

It's not naive at all, to suggest that, a reason could not be found, to invade Iraq if it's leader for the past thirty years ran the country like the French do theirs.

he could have ordered an invasion of Sweden...

Come now, Sparks,he could not have ordered an invasion of Sweden, and well you know it.
Nor could he have ordered an invasion of Iraq, if Saddam had conducted his countries affairs more like france over the years,thats my point.
Saddam certainly has to share some of the blame for what happened.

And remember that 4% of the electorate is actually rather a lot of people.

Actually, I'm pretty sure, if you stood outside Mass in every Parish in the land, you'd find your 4% easily and often enough, a tactic, that wouldn't be foreign to some of our home grown right of centre fundamentalists.
mm

Sparks

Saddam certainly has to share some of the blame for what happened.

See, I'm not trying to say he isn't/wasn't worthy of spending the rest of his life making small rocks in siberia - but the thing is that so are a lot of other leaders world-wide. Iraq, however, is unique in that it had very little in the way of defence thanks to 12 years of sanctions and arms inspectors, a large amount of oil, a policy of using euros for a currency standard instead of the dollar, and a history of a fight with Jr's daddy.
So frankly, there wasn't anything that he could have done to prevent the invasion. Even if he'd had a brain transplant with Ghandi, the US was going to invade. As I said,
The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

Come now, Sparks,he could not have ordered an invasion of Sweden, and well you know it.

Yeah. I also knew he could never disappear US citizens, introduce the patriot act, start a war of aggression, ignore the largest civil protests since the Vietnam war, run roughshod over the UN, ignored the Geneva Convention completely, killed 13-14,000 innocent civilians, invaded afghanistan and the middle east, or restart the nuclear arms race.
Sadly, when it comes to underestimating the level of insanity he's capable of achieving, I'm woefully ept

Actually, I'm pretty sure, if you stood outside Mass in every Parish in the land, you'd find your 4% easily and often enough, a tactic, that wouldn't be foreign to some of our home grown right of centre fundamentalists.

Which is sort of why the word "binding" gets used a lot, I guess.
And recall, the right-wing crowd you're talking about would want consitutional change to prevent divorce or ban abortion or declare the roman catholic equivalent to sharia law or whatever - and constitutional referenda are different animals to non-constitutional referenda. This can be done in a manner that prevents abuse without limiting rights, in other words.
And you have yet to prove that this silent majority is a threat to civil rights, by the way...

Originally posted by Sparks
See, I'm not trying to say he isn't/wasn't worthy of spending the rest of his life making small rocks in siberia - but the thing is that so are a lot of other leaders world-wide. Iraq, however, is unique in that it had very little in the way of defence thanks to 12 years of sanctions and arms inspectors, a large amount of oil, a policy of using euros for a currency standard instead of the dollar, and a history of a fight with Jr's daddy.
So frankly, there wasn't anything that he could have done to prevent the invasion. Even if he'd had a brain transplant with Ghandi, the US was going to invade. As I said,
The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

My point was again that Saddam chose his path, the something he could have done to prevent the invasion, would have been to conduct his countries affairs more like the French do.
The French in running their country in the way that they do,with interests often conflicting with those of the U.S would have been a good example for Saddam.
He had thirty years to follow it and never did.

Yeah. I also knew he could never disappear US citizens, introduce the patriot act, start a war of aggression, ignore the largest civil protests since the Vietnam war, run roughshod over the UN, ignored the Geneva Convention completely, killed 13-14,000 innocent civilians, invaded afghanistan and the middle east, or restart the nuclear arms race.

Stating all that is still very far from, declaring war on sweden or France for that matter,I think we know such a notion belongs in fiction.

And you have yet to prove that this silent majority is a threat to civil rights, by the way...

what silent majority is that??
I don't have a problem with Referenda, in fact I laud them as you know, and peoples right to change their mind.
I'd just suspect, my shoe leather would be worn out going to the polls, with the zealousness of those that would get their signatures at the chapel gates.
mm

Sparks

My point was again that Saddam chose his path, the something he could have done to prevent the invasion, would have been to conduct his countries affairs more like the French do.
The French in running their country in the way that they do,with interests often conflicting with those of the U.S would have been a good example for Saddam.
He had thirty years to follow it and never did.

For the third time, that's not only naieve, it's wrong.

Stating all that is still very far from, declaring war on sweden or France for that matter,I think we know such a notion belongs in fiction.

Except that I've seen americans being polled on the streets of new york as to whether or not they ought to sanction strikes on sweden. And many of them agreed with the idea in principle and a few were actually ardent that it was about time it happened... :rolleyes:

what silent majority is that??

The ones you mentioned, signing petitions outside churches...

I don't have a problem with Referenda, in fact I laud them as you know, and peoples right to change their mind.
I'd just suspect, my shoe leather would be worn out going to the polls, with the zealousness of those that would get their signatures at the chapel gates.

You're assuming then, that people just sign anything if you catch them outside church?
Last time I checked, trying to get people to sign a petition for legalised abortion outside church after mass was considered a difficult task...
The point is, that people won't sign a petition for something they don't support or want themselves.

Originally posted by Sparks
For the third time, that's not only naieve, it's wrong.

Hang on now sparks,how is it wrong?? Saddam did choose to run his country like a tyrant.
If he ran it like France is run, there would have been no grounds for an invasion, invented or not-thats logic.

Except that I've seen americans being polled on the streets of new york as to whether or not they ought to sanction strikes on sweden. And many of them agreed with the idea in principle and a few were actually ardent that it was about time it happened...

You know don't you, that you are not showing me there that, Bush would get support for an invasion of Sweden, by telling me that.
I could go up the road from here and get equally quirky opinions about anything.
What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??

You're assuming then, that people just sign anything if you catch them outside church?
Last time I checked, trying to get people to sign a petition for legalised abortion outside church after mass was considered a difficult task...
The point is, that people won't sign a petition for something they don't support or want themselves.

errr sparks, I was assuming that the petitions outside the Chapels would be to get referenda on issues like banning travel for abortion, banning condoms,alcohol sales to the under 25's,Divorce etc, etc etc...
I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything , just 'cause they've been caught on the hop, least of all legalised abortion:eek:
mm

Sparks

Hang on now sparks,how is it wrong?? Saddam did choose to run his country like a tyrant.
If he ran it like France is run, there would have been no grounds for an invasion, invented or not-thats logic.

It's wrong because the invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the way he ran Iraq.

What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??

Frankly? The poor educational standards in the states.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything

Then where's the problem?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by Sparks
It's wrong because the invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the way he ran Iraq.

It's not wrong, because, the invasion wouldn't be possible, if Saddam ran the affairs of his country, in the same way French Presidents ran theirs.
He had the ultimate control of his own and his countries destiny.

What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??
Frankly? The poor educational standards in the states.

Nice evasion of the purpose of my question there, you were suggesting that, the people of the U.S would support an invasion of Sweden, you might get ten or 15% to vote for that but I doubt it....
You'd get a similar number voting for Lord Sutch at some by-elections in the UK.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything

Then where's the problem?

Now you are resorting to misquoting me, heres the full sentence.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything , just 'cause they've been caught on the hop, least of all legalised abortion

In other words my reply, directly after , the quote i took from you, when read as the full sentence above (and not the snipped version you've quoted) asserts that people outside Catholic chapels would sign petitions for things that they would agree with.
mm

Sparks

It's not wrong, because, the invasion wouldn't be possible, if Saddam ran the affairs of his country, in the same way French Presidents ran theirs.
He had the ultimate control of his own and his countries destiny.

<sigh>
The decision to invade was taken on the 13th of september, 2001, according to wolfowitz. It had nothing to do with how he ran Iraq's domestic affairs. Nothing.

You'd get a similar number voting for Lord Sutch at some by-elections in the UK.

Yes, but for a different reason. Sutch was pretty much the UK equivalent to "none of the above". Voting for him has to be counted as a form of protest more than anything else.

In other words my reply, directly after , the quote i took from you, when read as the full sentence above (and not the snipped version you've quoted) asserts that people outside Catholic chapels would sign petitions for things that they would agree with.

In which case, you'd have no real right to complain either, since it'd be reflecting the will of the majority....

Originally posted by Sparks
<sigh>
The decision to invade was taken on the 13th of september, 2001, according to wolfowitz. It had nothing to do with how he ran Iraq's domestic affairs. Nothing.

you are again skipping over my assertion that, if Saddam ran his country like the French President runs his,an invasion of Iraq by the U.S, the U.K or anybody, could not have been contimplated.
He had the power to run his countries affairs in such a manner,yet didn't.
Instead he ran it like an egotistical, tyrannical maniac, making, an invasion possible.
If he had ran it like France,there would be no invasion.
thats where he must take some blame for his own downfall.
I see now you are adding the word Domestic above...
I didn't use, the word domestic,I am referring to the way he used all of his presidential powers vis a vis the way French Presidents have used theirs.

Yes, but for a different reason. Sutch was pretty much the UK equivalent to "none of the above". Voting for him has to be counted as a form of protest more than anything else.

As would be a small percentage of people who might vote in a U.S referendum for an invasion of Sweden.
An invasion idea that you brought, up in the first place and which I say again is fiction and nothing more than that.

In which case, you'd have no real right to complain either, since it'd be reflecting the will of the majority....

Errr sparks I was complaining that, there would be a possibility, that we would be wearing our shoes out going to multiple referenda, not about the results of any referenda.
It wouldn't be difficult to get regular religous oriented referenda, if you only needed 4% of the electorate, if you were putting you case outside every Catholic chapel in the land on a Saturday and a Sunday.
mm

Sparks

Instead he ran it like an egotistical, tyrannical maniac, making, an invasion possible.

Man, I'd understand your point if Iraq was invaded to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
But it wasn't.
So your point is invald.

I see now you are adding the word Domestic above...
I didn't use, the word domestic,I am referring to the way he used all of his presidential powers vis a vis the way French Presidents have used theirs.

Now you're going to have to be more specific.

As would be a small percentage of people who might vote in a U.S referendum for an invasion of Sweden.

Now that would be a rather unique form of protest, wouldn't it?
Remember, such a referendum would be a yes/no affair, not a multiple choice affair like an election.
There's no room for a protest in other words.

Errr sparks I was complaining that, there would be a possibility, that we would be wearing our shoes out going to multiple referenda, not about the results of any referenda.
It wouldn't be difficult to get regular religous oriented referenda, if you only needed 4% of the electorate, if you were putting you case outside every Catholic chapel in the land on a Saturday and a Sunday.

So your argument is that we should leave the control of the country in the hands of a minority because walking to the polls on a weekend is too much of a chore?
Bonkey, how often are polls held in switzerland?

Originally posted by Sparks
Man, I'd understand your point if Iraq was invaded to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
But it wasn't.
So your point is invald.

My point, is, If saddam ran his country , like French Presidents do theirs, a U.S or U.K invasion would not have been conceived at all.
He had it within his authority to , run his country in that way, but didn't, so must have some blame for the consequenses of that.
Thats a Valid point, and not the point you think I am making.
Are we clear there now?

Remember, such a referendum would be a yes/no affair, not a multiple choice affair like an election.
There's no room for a protest in other words.

But voting yes to an invasion is a protest.

So your argument is that we should leave the control of the country in the hands of a minority because walking to the polls on a weekend is too much of a chore?

If it's too often,yes, I'd rather the cost of such regular polls, wanted by the few (as many of them would be ) would be going on more worthwhile things like nurses pay perhaps.
Remember, I'm saying I would think, that polls would become ten a penny here, untill certain conservative agenda's wasted a lot of money, plying there case many times.
mm
p.s sparks could we take the direct democracy part of this discussion to a separate thread...,

Sparks

My point, is, If saddam ran his country , like French Presidents do theirs, a U.S or U.K invasion would not have been conceived at all.
He had it within his authority to , run his country in that way, but didn't, so must have some blame for the consequenses of that.
Thats a Valid point, and not the point you think I am making.
Are we clear there now?

I was never unclear as to your point Man, I'm just saying that it's wrong. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or legal reasons. It took place to further the self-interest of the US. The only way to have prevented it, ironically, would have been to have actually had WMDs and the willingness to use them in self-defence.

If it's too often,yes, I'd rather the cost of such regular polls, wanted by the few (as many of them would be ) would be going on more worthwhile things like nurses pay perhaps.

Which costs more, a protest (and ancillary garda pay and so on) or a referendum?

Originally posted by Sparks
I was never unclear as to your point Man, I'm just saying that it's wrong. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or legal reasons. It took place to further the self-interest of the US. The only way to have prevented it, ironically, would have been to have actually had WMDs and the willingness to use them in self-defence.

Well you seem very unclear about what I am saying, so I will try again,I am not arguing about the why's and wherefores of the invasion itself, I'm simply stating that if Saddam had followed the course of running his country in similar fashion to the way the French run theirs, there would never have been an invasion of Iraq by the U.S, the U.K or any other western country, it just could not have been conceived.
Saddam has to take some blame for the outcome as it happened.
mm

Sparks

*beats head against wall repeatedly*
The - invasion - had - nothing - to - do - with - saddam.
It - was - to - further - the - self-interest - of - the - US.
Saddam - had - little - to - do - with - it.

gandalf

Well I have to agree with Sparks here that the invasion was caused by an interest in controlling OIL and the regime change arguement was a way to market that goal in nice little feelgood package that makes the Axis of Diesel feel good.

Now what I want to know is what this has to do with the topic of Tony Blair being the anti-Christ. I would have thought the Blairs butchering of a Beetles song in China would have been proof enough of this

Gandalf.

Originally posted by Sparks
*beats head against wall repeatedly*
The - invasion - had - nothing - to - do - with - saddam.
It - was - to - further - the - self-interest - of - the - US.
Saddam - had - little - to - do - with - it.

sparks,
You seem obsessed with preaching to the converted as regards,the Bush administrations interests in Iraq.
In so doing you want to completely ignore the fact that all I am saying is that such an invasion would have been impossible, if Saddam had ran his country in the way that the French presidents did theirs.He therefore must take some blame for what happened.
And to drag this back on topic, since, the whole subject thread regarding Blair being the "Anti-Christ" hinges on events soley around the Iraq invasion, we wouldn't be having this discussion either if Saddam had ran his country like the French President.
mm