questionmark Posted December 11, 2009 #1 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Tony Blair would still have led the country to war in Iraq even if he had known that it had no weapons of mass destruction. The former Prime Minister has confessed that he would have had to use different arguments to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. But he says in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow morning that he would still have taken steps to remove the Iraqi dictator from power. He also put the decision to go to war in Iraq in the context of a wider battle over Islam. He said: “I happen to think that there is a major struggle going on all over the world, really, which is about Islam and what is happening within Islam. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 12, 2009 #2 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The guy certainly missed rabies vaccination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Red Devil Posted December 12, 2009 #3 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The guy certainly missed rabies vaccination... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted December 12, 2009 #4 Share Posted December 12, 2009 -arrest him immediately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Danger Posted December 12, 2009 #5 Share Posted December 12, 2009 well he did go to war knowing that they had no weapons of mass destruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glyndowers heir Posted December 12, 2009 #6 Share Posted December 12, 2009 So there you go If one set of lies wasn't adequate to go to war, he would have invented others! Why is this man not being prosecuted at a war crimes trial? - answer only the losers leaders end up getting shot - the winners make the rules and write the history books. This man has the personal responsibility for all those deaths in this pointless war, but he is going to get away with it. :angry2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted December 12, 2009 #7 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The man is either insane, or a criminal. And on his own admission, he was at the time. And this is a man who, be it not forgotten, was until quite recently being put forward by his friends as a candidate for President of Europe. So now, everyone who was laughing/indignant at that job going to a Belgian, just think on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 12, 2009 #8 Share Posted December 12, 2009 So there you go If one set of lies wasn't adequate to go to war, he would have invented others! Why is this man not being prosecuted at a war crimes trial? - answer only the losers leaders end up getting shot - the winners make the rules and write the history books. This man has the personal responsibility for all those deaths in this pointless war, but he is going to get away with it. :angry2: Your absolutely right - most of the leading politicians are war criminals, but only those who lost the wars go for trials, while the winners write the history. This is how it goes for thousands of years already. Technically a "war criminal" is an oxymoron, as the war has no universal laws for them to be violated, except for several conventions, usually signed by all sides - but they only work until the first breach. Mostly the conventions are enforced by natural fear of retribution, not by the signatures - say in WW2 neither side used chemical weapons despite all sides had them ready, and only out of fear to be also subjected to a chemical warfare. Same refers to Red cross rules and POW-related rules, they are also followed normally because by mistreating the adversary's captives the perpetrator risks the adversary mistreating the captives in response. Bush only build his Bushenwald in Guantanamo because he knew no Islamic country can do the same for Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 12, 2009 Author #9 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The man is either insane, or a criminal. And on his own admission, he was at the time. And this is a man who, be it not forgotten, was until quite recently being put forward by his friends as a candidate for President of Europe. So now, everyone who was laughing/indignant at that job going to a Belgian, just think on that. The problem is not that it went to a Belgian...there are plenty of competent Belgians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #10 Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) For those of you who are angry about going to war over lies: Would you still be angry, or would you have supported the war had Blair and Bush just come out and said, "saddam is a bad guy killing and torturing innocent people so we're gonna take him out" ? Edited December 12, 2009 by bigtroutak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 12, 2009 #11 Share Posted December 12, 2009 The problem is not that it went to a Belgian...there are plenty of competent Belgians... I think 747 meant that EU must be happy with the Belgian dude, as it would be dangerous to have such a political adventurist as Blair as a president. It is 3 wars on his account! He was even bombing an European country and casually redrawing the borders in Europe. Last time Hitler was doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted December 12, 2009 #12 Share Posted December 12, 2009 For those of you who are angry about going to war over lies: Would you still be angry, or would you have supported the war had Blair and Bush just come out and said, "saddam is a bad guy killing and torturing innocent people so we're gonna take him out" ? Yes, world peace! world this and that. Then too bad for the Iraqis for its really none of our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 12, 2009 Author #13 Share Posted December 12, 2009 For those of you who are angry about going to war over lies: Would you still be angry, or would you have supported the war had Blair and Bush just come out and said, "saddam is a bad guy killing and torturing innocent people so we're gonna take him out" ? They hardly would have gotten reelected if they had told the truth. And if it is about bad guys killing and torturing,... there are several doing just that still in power, and been there before Saddam. Why was he singled out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glyndowers heir Posted December 12, 2009 #14 Share Posted December 12, 2009 For those of you who are angry about going to war over lies: Would you still be angry, or would you have supported the war had Blair and Bush just come out and said, "saddam is a bad guy killing and torturing innocent people so we're gonna take him out" ? Yes I would still be angry, The world is full of 'Bad guys killing and torturing innocent people' But why should our brave young people be sent to sort out the mess when the affected citizens don't have the will to do the job themselves? And dont give me the standard "but the bad guys have all the power and military might" argument, history has shown us that it doesn't matter how strong the bad guys supporters are if a million or more people decide they've had enough and decide to take action. The Iraqi people could have solved the problem themselves - but obviously didn't so why did we have to interfere in a sovereign nations internal politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted December 12, 2009 #15 Share Posted December 12, 2009 They hardly would have gotten reelected if they had told the truth. And if it is about bad guys killing and torturing,... there are several doing just that still in power, and been there before Saddam. Why was he singled out? All or nothing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #16 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes, world peace! world this and that. Then too bad for the Iraqis for its really none of our business. I'm a bit of a history buff and when watching anything surrounding WWII, the European theater in particular, the one mantra that is inevitably repeated is Never Again and yet we allow those kinds of things to happen daily around the world. Saddam was a sadistic mass murderer who was only limited in size and scope by his inability to formulate a larger more technically proficient force. Now do I believe THAT is the reason we went into Iraq, no. Do I believe that attacking Iraq can (could) be justified because of that reasoning, absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 12, 2009 #17 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes, world peace! world this and that. Then too bad for the Iraqis for its really none of our business. Agree in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #18 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes I would still be angry, The world is full of 'Bad guys killing and torturing innocent people' But why should our brave young people be sent to sort out the mess when the affected citizens don't have the will to do the job themselves? And dont give me the standard "but the bad guys have all the power and military might" argument, history has shown us that it doesn't matter how strong the bad guys supporters are if a million or more people decide they've had enough and decide to take action. The Iraqi people could have solved the problem themselves - but obviously didn't so why did we have to interfere in a sovereign nations internal politics? So by your logic the Jews should have sucked it up and found the will to stop Hitler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted December 12, 2009 #19 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I'm a bit of a history buff and when watching anything surrounding WWII, the European theater in particular, the one mantra that is inevitably repeated is Never Again and yet we allow those kinds of things to happen daily around the world. Saddam was a sadistic mass murderer who was only limited in size and scope by his inability to formulate a larger more technically proficient force. Now do I believe THAT is the reason we went into Iraq, no. Do I believe that attacking Iraq can (could) be justified because of that reasoning, absolutely. Who told you he was? The media of the countries which later attacked him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 12, 2009 Author #20 Share Posted December 12, 2009 All or nothing then? No, cut the bull***t then. At least be honest and man enough to say the truth. But I guess that is a little too much to expect from "world leaders" trying to write history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #21 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Who told you he was? The media of the countries which later attacked him? LOL I think I heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad use that same argument about the holocaust! Seriously though I don't trust my government on most things, but when do you draw the line? What evidence do you need to see to be convinced? How do you know they didn't fake that evidence? That line of thinking is a slippery slope that ends with a nation being completely isolationistic. Certain nations have been blessed with resources beyond the wildest dreams of most of the rest of the world. In my opinion it is the duty of those nations to help make the world a better place ( a slippery slope of my own I know) through the use of those resources be they financial, material or military. One final thought for everyone: Were you this angry about Kosovo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glyndowers heir Posted December 12, 2009 #22 Share Posted December 12, 2009 (edited) So by your logic the Jews should have sucked it up and found the will to stop Hitler? I am afraid you are trying to compare two totally different sets of circumstances, my views relate to Iraq and Blairs use of lies to justify interference in another countries internal affairs but I will try to explain the difference: There was a time in Germany when the percentage of the population that followed the Jewish faith had positions of influence in government, military and industry/commerce but events flowed too rapidly for them to have had any chance of denying Hitler power. Remember they were Germans too and initially Hitler appealed to national pride in his rise to power, the religious persecution came much later when it was impossible for the German Jews to act. Our military involvement came only when countries we had defence pacts with were attacked and we were obliged and Right to Honour those commitments, this is totally different to the situation in Iraq where we had no such undertaking. The invasion of Iraq would be more like India invading the UK because they did not like the labour government here and the uk population is taking too long to remove it! Edited December 12, 2009 by glyndowers heir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #23 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Oh no you don't! I am not falling for that, I am no Holocaust denier, My family lost too many in that particular piece of history including Jews who were related by marriage. There was a time in Germany when the percentage of the population that followed the Jewish faith had positions of influence in government, military and industry/commerce but events flowed too rapidly for them to have had any chance of denying Hitler power. Remember they were Germans too and initially Hitler appealed to national pride in his rise to power, the religious persecution came much later when it was impossible for the German Jews to act. Our military involvement came only when countries we had defence pacts with were attacked and we were obliged and Right to Honour those commitments, this is totally different to the situation in Iraq where we had no such undertaking. The invasion of Iraq would be more like India invading the UK because they did not like the labour government here and the uk population is taking too long to remove it! Not calling you a holocaust denier, just wondering if Hitler had contained his killing of Jews Gypsies etc. to within his own borders would you have thought other nations should have stepped in? You're pretty quick to find excuses why the Jews couldn't defend themselves, yet say that theres no reason besides a lack of will that those in Iraq couldn't defend themselves. Why the discrepancy? And I gotta wonder, your analogy of India invading the UK seems to ignore, deny or at least minimize the human rights atrocities committed by Saddam while he was in power. Is that racism or political expediency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2009 #24 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I am afraid you are trying to compare two totally different sets of circumstances, my views relate to Iraq and Blairs use of lies to justify interference in another countries internal affairs My original question was: If Blair and Bush had just come out and said : "Saddam is a bad guy , who is doing horrible things to people so we're gonna go take him out" would you have supported the effort, or would you still be angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted December 12, 2009 Author #25 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Not calling you a holocaust denier, just wondering if Hitler had contained his killing of Jews Gypsies etc. to within his own borders would you have thought other nations should have stepped in? You're pretty quick to find excuses why the Jews couldn't defend themselves, yet say that theres no reason besides a lack of will that those in Iraq couldn't defend themselves. Why the discrepancy? And I gotta wonder, your analogy of India invading the UK seems to ignore, deny or at least minimize the human rights atrocities committed by Saddam while he was in power. Is that racism or political expediency? Nobody would have done a **** to save some Jews or Gypsies, else they would have gone after Adolf in 38 and not waited until he starts the war. Or they would have at least bombed the concentration camps they could get at. almost 70 years later it is time to quit the crap. The only ones to declare war on Adolf were the French and the Brits. The rest had the war come to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now