Blair .. breathtaking..

Jonny7

Blair is up in 'the dock', if you want to call it that, about the Iraq war.

Fair enough, he is sticking to his guns, but really and truly, how on earth is this man a UN Middle East peace envoy???

He is actually using this to bang on about Iran, and regardless of what you believe about Irans intentions, I don't think they're exactly going to be trustful of a "peace" envoy who constantly talks of war.. not to mention freakin started one in the region.. over a lie ..

Breathtaking arrogance

The GOP would love this man

Nodin

He did the usual 'linkage by implication' of Saddam and 9/11 as well. A sad and sorry state of affairs. I found the acting at the end (the apparent humility and half arsed apology) similarily nauseating.

Nodin

Here you can see him in action on the issue of the open offer to Bush, and bringing in the false linkage of 9/11.
http://gu.com/p/2mhkb

Mr.Micro

Blair is nothing more than a cowardly vile creep full of deceit and clearly quite mad IMO. He has not had enough of murder/torture that the disgusting creep wants more in the form of attacking Iran. He is some Christian. A truly revolting individual that will try and justify his evil deeds to avoid confronting them himself. Keeping his love letters to Bush secret and vice versa, how romantic and he afforded the privilege. Crawl back under your rock Bliar.

Fratton Fred

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Blair is nothing more than a cowardly vile creep full of deceit and clearly quite mad IMO. He has not had enough of murder/torture that the disgusting creep wants more in the form of attacking Iran. He is some Christian. A truly revolting individual that will try and justify his evil deeds to avoid confronting them himself. Keeping his love letters to Bush secret and vice versa, how romantic and he afforded the privilege. Crawl back under your rock Bliar.

I think he has gone slightly insane and well he should.

I think he concocted the war on Iraq as some sort of moral crusade and thought that he would bring peace and love to the country.

Now he seems so intent on covering up his error, he has become like a manic obsessive over it.

Shame really, because he did a lot of good, but Iraq completely overshadows it.

steelcityblues

Hopefully he won't be making obscene money from public speaking appearances for much longer either.

Who would honestly want to listen his BS for an hour?

Nodin

steelcityblues wrote: »

Hopefully he won't be making obscene money from public speaking appearances for much longer either.

Who would honestly want to listen his BS for an hour?

Not the Chinese, at any rate.

Tony Blair earned the scorn of the Chinese media yesterday for accepting £200,000 for a three-hour spin through southern China, during which he gave a "cliched" speech and fitted in a quick jaunt around a high-class villa complex.

"Is he worth the money?" asked some Chinese newspapers and compared the former prime minister's oratorical insights to those of a village official.
The Guangzhou Daily said the trip was simply a "money-raking" exercise and complained that China was becoming a place for celebrities and former leaders to come and cash in. The paper said it was time for Chinese sponsors to think a bit harder about who they invite to open their supermarkets and walk down their red carpets.
"We should exercise less ostentation and vanity... learn more new and genuine knowledge – especially when we are using even a cent of taxpayers'money," the paper said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-media-scorns-blairs-pound200000-cash-raking-lecture-trip-399626.html

Son Of A Vidic

I hold Blair in greater contempt than George bush, because he allowed himself to be the crutch that Bush used for support during his 'crusade'. He is a pompous, arrogant, heartless cretin. His cringeworthy acting was hard to take at the best of times. We expected nothing of the idiot Bush, but we expected Blair to reign him in. Unfortunately he only added to the bloodlust and became complicit in the deception.

Sand

Intriguing, Blair took a decision based on the personal determination that it was right to remove a dictator and in the hope that a democracy could be established.

What a ****ing monster.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Intriguing, Blair took a decision based on the personal determination that it was right to remove a dictator and in the hope that a democracy could be established.

What a ****ing monster.

Come on Sand. Thats one of the most naive thing I have ever heard you say. We know that democracy was down in the order for motives for "getting rid" of Saddam. Remember, the west put him there in the first place.

Sand

Come on Sand. Thats one of the most naive thing I have ever heard you say. We know that democracy was down in the order for motives for "getting rid" of Saddam. Remember, the west put him there in the first place.

Is Blair "the west"? Did Blair put Saddam in power? Did Blair maintain Saddam in power?

Perhaps the most naive explanation I have heard for British involvement in the Iraq invasion is "Oil!".

jank

Well Blair is not "the West" himself but is of course part of it. The British have been involved in the middle east for centuries. Of course after Suez this involvement is much less pronounced.

I never mentioned oil by the way, you did. Maybe Blair actually believes himself. That would be the ultimate naivety.

Sand

Well Blair is not "the West" himself but is of course part of it.

So are you, do you accept your own responsibility for putting Saddam into power?

z0oT

Sand wrote: »

Intriguing, Blair took a decision based on the personal determination that it was right to remove a dictator and in the hope that a democracy could be established.

What a ****ing monster.

Why was it that if "Freedom and Democracy" was the goal from the offset, that entering with the military was the first port of call?

Bob Z

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I hold Blair in greater contempt than George bush, because he allowed himself to be the crutch that Bush used for support during his 'crusade'. He is a pompous, arrogant, heartless cretin. His cringeworthy acting was hard to take at the best of times. We expected nothing of the idiot Bush, but we expected Blair to reign him in. Unfortunately he only added to the bloodlust and became complicit in the deception.

It's hard to know what to make of Blair. Did he think he was doing the right thing or was he looking to keep in with the US?

But you expected more of Blair than bush

jank

Sand wrote: »

So are you, do you accept your own responsibility for putting Saddam into power?

I think you now quite well the deference between a citizen of Ireland and the PM of a nation that goes to war over false intelligence. Very facetious argument Sand which is a good way to drive the conversation off topic.

virmilitaris

I fail to understand peoples continued vexation about this.

Some of the reasons used to go into Iraq were complete fabrications. There were no WMD's in Iraq and Bush and Blair might well have known that and were using WMD's as a scare tactic to gather support for the invasion. This was a stupid decision by both administrations at the time.

We should have gone in regardless. We should have removed Saddam in the 90's.

But one can't overlook the great good that was done by this invasion. I met Iraqi people before the 2003 invasion and their existence was little better than what one would get under the Great or the Dear leaders. Because of Bush and Blair a great evil was removed from power.

karma_

virmilitaris wrote: »

But one can't overlook the great good that was done by this invasion. I met Iraqi people before the 2003 invasion and their existence was little better than what one would get under the Great or the Dear leaders. Because of Bush and Blair a great evil was removed from power.

And how many Iraqis had to be killed to do this 'great good'. In many of the pro-invasion arguments, life appears to be incredibly cheap.

digme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Blair is up in 'the dock', if you want to call it that, about the Iraq war.

Fair enough, he is sticking to his guns, but really and truly, how on earth is this man a UN Middle East peace envoy???

He is actually using this to bang on about Iran, and regardless of what you believe about Irans intentions, I don't think they're exactly going to be trustful of a "peace" envoy who constantly talks of war.. not to mention freakin started one in the region.. over a lie ..

Breathtaking arrogance

The GOP would love this man

They are taught to stick to their guns,it's kinda like starting off a topic about how much of a sh!thole africa is by starting off your post with, i'm not a racist, but......
Blair is a smooth talking, sick, monster,that's all.

astrofool

How many Iraqis continued to be killed by Saddam, what of the genocide against the Kurds? How many would have died had he been left in power?

digme

astrofool wrote: »

How many Iraqis continued to be killed by Saddam, what of the genocide against the Kurds? How many would have died had he been left in power?

stupid argument

mewso

virmilitaris wrote: »

Some of the reasons used to go into Iraq were complete fabrications.

I'm open to correction but one reason was given at the time and one only from what I recall. The other justifications came after the war when that reason was proven to be false.

CrackisWhack

Sand wrote: »

Is Blair "the west"? Did Blair put Saddam in power? Did Blair maintain Saddam in power?

Perhaps the most naive explanation I have heard for British involvement in the Iraq invasion is "Oil!".

Well that would be the most obvious explanation. Care to enlighten us?

Nodin

astrofool wrote: »

How many Iraqis continued to be killed by Saddam, what of the genocide against the Kurds? How many would have died had he been left in power?

The "no fly" zones established in the south and north, combined with the Kurdish autonomous area, meant that he no longer had the ability to attack those areas.

I note that few people in power seemed to care about the Kurds when they were being massacred. Nobody seemed to threaten the Turks when they were bombing them not too long ago.

Sand wrote:

Intriguing, Blair took a decision based on the personal determination that it was right to remove a dictator and in the hope that a democracy could be established.

He took a personal descision to aid the US and remove Saddam and then spent his energies subverting the political process so that he could achieve that end.

irishh_bob

astrofool wrote: »

How many Iraqis continued to be killed by Saddam, what of the genocide against the Kurds? How many would have died had he been left in power?

beside the point as none of those realitys were used as a reason to go to war back in 2003 , if that was the main criteria for invading , than the usa and uk should be around now , arranging for an invasion of north korea , zimbabwe , uzbekistan , sudan , the congo or dozens of other non democratic nations around the world

blair is a smooth , articulate , persuasive , slick and polished slimeball , in this regard , he has no equal

Mr.Micro

Nodin wrote: »

He took a personal descision to aid the US and remove Saddam and then spent his energies subverting the political process so that he could achieve that end.

Indeed he did. At least 8 months before the invasion he guaranteed his support for Bush and his plan. He then set about making sure the reports, dossiers were all enhanced or subdued so that he could do as he wanted. One thing arguing for or against the invasion but when a little twerp like Blair deliberately manipulates lies and half truths to circumvent democracy then the affair takes on a whole new twist. 700,000 plus people died and are still dying for Blair's wet dream.

whiteonion

Sand wrote: »

Intriguing, Blair took a decision based on the personal determination that it was right to remove a dictator and in the hope that a democracy could be established.

What a ****ing monster.

Are hundreds of thousands of dead people and a shattered country worth this price?

Why is democracy some sort of holy grail?

Nodin

whiteonion wrote: »

Are hundreds of thousands of dead people and a shattered country worth this price?

Why is democracy some sort of holy grail?

The idea that it was done for democracy is laughable. The US has consistently sought to undermine democratic decisions that it feels aren't in its own interests from Iran to Chile to Gaza in the post war period.

Take for example the Ukraine, where there was the 'orange revolution' and much funds sent via the EU and US to oppose the soviet backed candidate. Then we have the pro-democracy movement in Azerbaijan (a dictatorship) receiving virtually no support whatsoever. Why? El Presidente in Azerbaijan is pro-US and deemed 'friendly' to the West. Thats hardly putting 'freedom' at the top of priorities.

Besides, a quick look at some of the countries involved in the farce of making it appear to be an international effort (the "coalition of the willing )show a rather odd bunch of fellow travellers for a crusade for democracy - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tonga (then a monarchy).....

whiteonion

Nodin wrote: »

The idea that it was done for democracy is laughable. The US has consistently sought to undermine democratic decisions that it feels aren't in its own interests from Iran to Chile to Gaza in the post war period.

Take for example the Ukraine, where there was the 'orange revolution' and much funds sent via the EU and US to oppose the soviet backed candidate. Then we have the pro-democracy movement in Azerbaijan (a dictatorship) receiving virtually no support whatsoever. Why? El Presidente in Azerbaijan is pro-US and deemed 'friendly' to the West. Thats hardly putting 'freedom' at the top of priorities.

Besides, a quick look at some of the countries involved in the farce of making it appear to be an international effort (the "coalition of the willing )show a rather odd bunch of fellow travellers for a crusade for democracy - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tonga (then a monarchy).....

Yes, the fact that he thinks Britain and the US wants to spread freedom is just laughable.

I honestly believe that Tony Blair deserves to face a firing squad for what he did.

virmilitaris

karma_ wrote: »

And how many Iraqis had to be killed to do this 'great good'. In many of the pro-invasion arguments, life appears to be incredibly cheap.

Again I completely fail to see any merit to this argument whatsoever.

I don't have a great deal of experience with Iraqis but I do have a huge amount of experience working with North Koreans and I can say without a single doubt in my mind that regardless of the cost of life, short of their complete extermination, removing the dear leader and his oligarchy of adjutants from power would be worth any price.

Let me pose a question to you. If you lived in a state such as Iraq under Saddam, North Korea as it is now or a state such as described in Orwell's 1984, wouldn't any sacrifice be worth it to change such a regime for the better ?

There are many immoral and disgusting reasons for war but here we have one of the very few that are honourable and just and necessary.

virmilitaris

mewso wrote: »

I'm open to correction but one reason was given at the time and one only from what I recall. The other justifications came after the war when that reason was proven to be false.

I'm open to correction myself but I believe that when Powell addressed the UN that he cited Saddam's record, crimes against the Iraqi and Kurdish people and the need to free Iraqis from his regime.

virmilitaris

whiteonion wrote: »

Are hundreds of thousands of dead people and a shattered country worth this price?

Yes.

Why is democracy some sort of holy grail?

Your very lucky that you haven't experienced life in a state such as Saddam's.

cuppa

sure aint they allies, i say job well done tony and george.

whiteonion

virmilitaris wrote: »

Yes.



Your very lucky that you haven't experienced life in a state such as Saddam's.

I'd rather be alive and living in a dictatorship, than being dead in a democracy...

virmilitaris

whiteonion wrote: »

I'd rather be alive and living in a dictatorship, than being dead in a democracy...

Your welcome to that opinion, fortunately it's one that the majority of human beings don't share.

I wonder how happy you'd be living in Nazi Germany.

Would it be better to have died fighting to topple National Socialism or to have lived making out an existence under it ?

Gijoe

virmilitaris wrote: »

Your welcome to that opinion, fortunately it's one that the majority of human beings don't share.

Source? Spokesman for the human species.

Mister men

War criminal. That is all.

virmilitaris

Gijoe wrote: »

Source? Spokesman for the human species.

Preferring to exist in a dystopian dictatorship or dying in the struggle to replace it with a free society ?

I would have thought history would be a good source that people will always struggle against the former to gain the latter even at the expense of their lives.

RichieC

virmilitaris wrote: »

Preferring to exist in a dystopian dictatorship or dying in the struggle to replace it with a free society ?

I would have thought history would be a good source that people will always struggle against the former to gain the latter even at the expense of their lives.

ask the same people how they feel about a money grubbing empire invading and occupying their country.

Lonesome Boatman

war criminal that should be taken to task for war crimes.

Gijoe

History also shows the US and UK are fans of putting these oppressive puppet regimes in power. see South America - the whole overthrowing an evil dictator is a lame argument and wasn't the real motivation. Its just a red herring.
Tony Blair is a war criminal.

virmilitaris

RichieC wrote: »

ask the same people how they feel about a money grubbing empire invading and occupying their country.

That's a different issue.

I already stated that the main reason for the invasion fed to the public, that of WMD's, was a fabrication and an extremely stupid decision. It was wrong to lie about it and I'm not convinced that even if it were true it would be a good enough reason to go in.

I also agree that the Americans should leave Iraq and I agree that a lot of what they and the British have done in Iraq has not been for the good of the Iraqi people.

But that doesn't take one iota of truth away from the fact that Saddam led a dystopian totalitarian regime that shouldn't have been allowed to exist and that kept the people of Iraq in a state of servitude which no human being should have to endure. They should have gone in and finished him off in the 90's or much sooner.

Look at North Korea. Any country that would go in there for any reason and topple the Kim regime and change that state to a more free society would have my support and should have the support of all humanity.

In summary and just to prevent further confusion. I completely agree that the WMD fabrication was a disgrace, I completely agree that the Americans and the British have done terrible things in Iraq and that needs to change. But that is a small price to pay for the toppling of such a tyrant and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

virmilitaris

Gijoe wrote: »

History also shows the US and UK are fans of putting these oppressive puppet regimes in power.

Absolutely and that should not be allowed to continue and western democracies have a lot to answer for in this regard.

see South America - the whole overthrowing an evil dictator is a lame argument and wasn't the real motivation.

I didn't say it was the real motivation, I said it should have been the real motivation.

I'm not pro-American, pro-Blair, pro-Bush or pro-whatever else you might think. I'm anti-totalitarianism, I'm for the freedom of people to live their lives in a free society.

The reasons behind the invasion and the conduct of the British and Americans in Iraq after the invasion are not my argument and frankly they are of much less importance than the removal of Saddam and the destruction of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq.

I could accept everything you are saying, that Blair is a war criminal, the Americans and the British went in for Oil and that they are never going to leave and it wouldn't make any difference to the undeniable truth that Saddam and the Ba'ath Party were an evil that needed to be removed from control over the Iraqi people.

Gijoe

virmilitaris wrote: »

Saddam and the Ba'ath Party were an evil that needed to be removed from control over the Iraqi people.

Agreed, but I think thats up to the Iraqi people. No matter how long it takes, how many of them had to struggle. Its their country and, in my view, up to them. You can't have countries getting involved in other countries internal matters by invading. But I agree Saddam and his ilk were b@stards, but they were Iraqi b@stards. I think we're going kind of off track with the original thread, but the problem with Blair (apart from being a war monger) is that he acts as if he had the Iraqi people's interests at heart and was looking out for them. Definitely not the case.

Has anyone seen John Pilger's documentary "The War You Don't See" which was on ITV before Xmas? great stuff

virmilitaris

Gijoe wrote: »

Agreed, but I think thats up to the Iraqi people. No matter how long it takes, how many of them had to struggle. Its their country and, in my view, up to them.

I used to, until quite recently, be of the same opinion as yourself but now I couldn't disagree more.

Let me again refer to North Korea. I'm doing this because I work with so many escapees from the North so I think I can make my case better by referring to it as a similar regime.

Unbeknownst to most people there have been several attempted movements against the Kim regime, especially since Kim Il-Sung died. Kim Il-Sung was actually seen as a father figure, reminiscent of the tzars in Russia. Indeed I'd say this was intentional as it was with Stalin.

These movements against the Kim Il-Jung regime were ruthlessly put down. To give you some idea of what ruthlessly means in terms of North Korea let me share another story with you. Someone wrote some graffiti on a bridge against the Kim regime in the countryside. The nearest village was exterminated because of this. Every man, woman and child killed because of some writing on a bridge which may not have even been written by someone from that village.

The problem with North Korea and places like it is that it is an oligarchical dictatorship. You have different levels of citizens similar to a caste system. At the top you have the high level party members who live the best kind of life, below them you have the lower party members, the intellectual class and below them the majority. The only people with the power to go against the system are the people who most benefit from the system.

You have a system which is so totally controlled that thoughtcrime actually exists. Everything is so tightly controlled and manipulated to make internal revolution nigh on impossible.

North Korea is in effect, everything that George Orwell feared when he wrote 1984. North Korea is Oceania in everything but name.

The vast majority of the North Korean population are brainwashed, malnurished walking corpses whose lives are less than meaningless.

We must do something to help these people. These people are our brothers and our sisters and we should be ashamed every day to not help them. To not interfere is a crime.

You can't have countries getting involved in other countries internal matters by invading. But I agree Saddam and his ilk were b@stards, but they were Iraqi b@stards. I think we're going kind of off track with the original thread, but the problem with Blair (apart from being a war monger) is that he acts as if he had the Iraqi people's interests at heart and was looking out for them. Definitely not the case.

I agree regarding Blair. He certainly didn't have the Iraqi people's interests at heart. But the invasion was right, toppling Saddam was right and the only thing wrong was that it didn't happen 10 years earlier.

Nodin

virmilitaris wrote: »

I'm open to correction myself but I believe that when Powell addressed the UN that he cited Saddam's record, crimes against the Iraqi and Kurdish people and the need to free Iraqis from his regime.

...but mainly focused on pictures of alleged storage facilities for weapons and waving around a small container, talking about its killing capability if filled with certain substances etc. He later declared he was 'extremely uncomfortable' with having to make that presentation.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Let me pose a question to you. If you lived in a state such as Iraq under Saddam, North Korea as it is now or a state such as described in Orwell's 1984, wouldn't any sacrifice be worth it to change such a regime for the better ?

There are many immoral and disgusting reasons for war but here we have one of the very few that are honourable and just and necessary. .

You seem to be posing a false dilemma - war or inaction. The facts are that Saddam no longer had access to the North of the country and was unable to fly over the south. He'd had to establish ties with tribal leaders long shunned, and attempted a rather clumsy public embrace of religous piety, all to shore up his crumbling regime. He was on the way out, and a few more years would have seen him gone.

virmilitaris

Nodin wrote: »

...but mainly focused on pictures of alleged storage facilities for weapons and waving around a small container, talking about its killing capability if filled with certain substances etc. He later declared he was 'extremely uncomfortable' with having to make that presentation.

I think you are confusing my position with others. I neither defend nor care about the WMD issue. I think it was ridiculous and stupid to make those fabrications. My position is that they should have gone in and toppled his regime in the 90's. There was more than enough reason to go in without the WMD scare.

You seem to be posing a false dilemma - war or inaction. The facts are that Saddam no longer had access to the North of the country and was unable to fly over the south.

And he still held a large percentage of his population under a totalitarian boot.

He'd had to establish ties with tribal leaders long shunned, and attempted a rather clumsy public embrace of religous piety, all to shore up his crumbling regime. He was on the way out, and a few more years would have seen him gone.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Saddam may have gone but he would have been replaced by another and the Ba'ath Party would remain.

After the end of the Soviet Union every expert in the world predicted the collapse of North Korea, and again in 1994 after the death of Kim Il-Sung and again during the famine in the 90's and again in the mid 00's and some even predict it when Kim Jung-Il dies.

Nodin

virmilitaris wrote: »

I think you are confusing my position with others. I neither defend nor care about the WMD issue. I think it was ridiculous and stupid to make those fabrications. My position is that they should have gone in and toppled his regime in the 90's. There was more than enough reason to go in without the WMD scare. .

My point was that the main thrust of the UN presentation was WMD

Earlier, you seemed to take a different view.

I'm open to correction myself but I believe that when Powell addressed the UN that he cited Saddam's record, crimes against the Iraqi and Kurdish people and the need to free Iraqis from his regime.

I might observe that when Saddam was most actively repressing the Kurds, nobody in the US Government seemed overly worried about it.

virmilitaris wrote: »

And he still held a large percentage of his population under a totalitarian boot. .

...but considerably less than he had done, and with far less authority. Thats how progress goes on - steps at a time.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Saddam may have gone but he would have been replaced by another and the Ba'ath Party would remain.
.

I admire the fact that you're able to use your psychic powers so readily and to be so unequivocal, but in all honesty, they don't have much place in the thread. The facts are that the regime was steadily being weakened, with a decrease in Saddams reach and authority.

virmilitaris wrote: »

But that doesn't take one iota of truth away from the fact that Saddam led a dystopian totalitarian regime that shouldn't have been allowed to exist and that kept the people of Iraq in a state of servitude which no human being should have to endure. They should have gone in and finished him off in the 90's or much sooner.
.

But "they" didn't. What happened instead was the US taking advantage of the mood domestically to advance its strategic goals in the Gulf. Any good that comes to the Iraqi people and the Kurds will be and is entirely incidental.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Look at North Korea. Any country that would go in there for any reason and topple the Kim regime and change that state to a more free society would have my support and should have the support of all humanity. .

But not the Chinese Government, hence the problem. Likewise Russia with Chechnya, America with the Occupied territories etc.

virmilitaris wrote: »

I could accept everything you are saying, that Blair is a war criminal, the Americans and the British went in for Oil and that they are never going to leave and it wouldn't make any difference to the undeniable truth that Saddam and the Ba'ath Party were an evil that needed to be removed from control over the Iraqi people. .

However replacing a Government based on 'Imperial' needs was not the way to go about it, and the fact that much was done by decree undermines the credibility of any 'native' Government set up under that powers largess.

irishh_bob

virmilitaris wrote: »

I think you are confusing my position with others. I neither defend nor care about the WMD issue. I think it was ridiculous and stupid to make those fabrications. My position is that they should have gone in and toppled his regime in the 90's. There was more than enough reason to go in without the WMD scare.



And he still held a large percentage of his population under a totalitarian boot.



I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Saddam may have gone but he would have been replaced by another and the Ba'ath Party would remain.

After the end of the Soviet Union every expert in the world predicted the collapse of North Korea, and again in 1994 after the death of Kim Il-Sung and again during the famine in the 90's and again in the mid 00's and some even predict it when Kim Jung-Il dies.

you clearly believe the usa should play the role of world cop , where do we draw the line , the israelis are opressing the pallestinians , the chineese are opressing those who live in tibet , the sudaneese goverment is opressing those in darfur , same deal with mr mugabe , ditto , kim jong ill in north korea

such a crieteria would set a dangerous precedent

Mr.Micro

irishh_bob wrote: »

you clearly believe the usa should play the role of world cop , where do we draw the line , the israelis are opressing the pallestinians , the chineese are opressing those who live in tibet , the sudaneese goverment is opressing those in darfur , same deal with mr mugabe , ditto , kim jong ill in north korea

such a crieteria would set a dangerous precedent

Basically Bob we should not ask questions or criticize the US or UK who know best for everyone......not. Accept all we are told.

RandomName2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think he has gone slightly insane and well he should.

I think he concocted the war on Iraq as some sort of moral crusade and thought that he would bring peace and love to the country.

Now he seems so intent on covering up his error, he has become like a manic obsessive over it.

Shame really, because he did a lot of good, but Iraq completely overshadows it.

I think the crux of the issue is to what extent he thought the justification for war was false. Was it wishful thinking, or intent?

How serious was the 9/11 linkage? Sure Saddam publicly praised the 9/11 hijackers, but did Blair genuinely declare a link between the two and if so, is he sticking to his guns on the issue? :eek:

As for sabre rattling concerning Iran - it makes little odds either way (Iran basically sticks out its tongue and says 'go on... I dare ya') but thought should be given to the wider dimension of Iran possibly getting cosy with China. This is mere deflection.