GHod bless Britain

[Hootnow]

But it took the war to happen to realise what the truth was. No one really knew what was going on in Iraq.

I read a comment somewhere that Blair had said he couldnt live with himself if he had said no and a major disaster happened because of it.

Of course no one wants any sort of war, being against war is normal. I expect people sitting at home to think 'no', but I dont expect them to think that people in charge of the country have the same luxury. Very narrow minded. Think of what Saddam was doing to his own people, that was enough reason alone to go in there. "But it wasnt our business" - ok then lets let a whole nation of people suffer and die, were too far away to care.

Erm....no it didn't? Considering that Iraq, the Arabs, the UN inspection team, El-Baradei etc were all telling us what the truth was. Lots of people knew what was going on in Iraq. Including (controversial....Bush and Blair). They wouldn't have needed to make up the 45 minute claim and the ridiculous link with Al-Qaeda (a secular Arab nationalist working with a fundamentalist Sunni terrorist group....yeah ok then).

And yet he seems to be perfectly at peace with himself for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he has caused because of his decision. I don't know about you but I would class that a disaster. In fact, he not only seems to be perfectly able to live with himself but shows no remorse and instead calls for more military action on Iran. The Middle East Peace Envoy, the man who apparently couldn't live with himself if a disaster happened, is still calling for military action. For a country in the Middle East. Got to love Tony.

I also expect people sitting at home to not have the slightest understanding for what war means for civilians. Its a lot easier to call for war and justify it when you're sitting on your dfs couch in Nottingham watching Eastenders.

The increased coalescing of humanitarianism and the military is an incredibly disturbing phenomenon. Not least because humanitarianism is about saving lives and militaries, regardless of what any of us think about our 'heroes', are designed to kill.

And Saddam killed maybe a million people over his 24 years in power, through two wars and state controlled terror. Even in a region of brutal dictators, he was sickening. Disgusting, the worst of the worst. How many have we killed in Iraq? The sanctions? Which did nothing to curb Saddam or remove him from power but which merely killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children? Or how about the invasion and the sectarian civil war we unleashed? How many hundreds of thousands were killed then? Have we killed more Iraqis than Saddam yet? When are Bush and Blair going to get dragged in front of a tribunal? The ICTI maybe? We can but live in hope.

So Humanitarianism is about saving lives? How many Iraqis have we saved from Saddam? Are we out of the negative yet?

And just to outline, we fought a war to 'liberate' a people. 9 years later, precariously placed after civil war, we have regions basically agitating for secession, one of the most secular Arab nations becoming increasingly split along religious lines, the vice president on the run and with Interpol after him, for having run religious death squads and the prime minister hardly a shining beacon of democracy. Great stuff.

I cannot believe there are some people who try to justify this war or Blair's/Bush's actions. Or even worse, try to claim that this war was somehow a trigger for the Arab Spring. :ross:

 

[Leeds Spur]

Blair became even more religious after the atrocities he committed! Funny that.

When can we expect to see him in The Hague?

 

[Leeds Spur]

Erm....no it didn't? Considering that Iraq, the Arabs, the UN inspection team, El-Baradei etc were all telling us what the truth was. Lots of people knew what was going on in Iraq. Including (controversial....Bush and Blair). They wouldn't have needed to make up the 45 minute claim and the ridiculous link with Al-Qaeda (a secular Arab nationalist working with a fundamentalist Sunni terrorist group....yeah ok then).

And yet he seems to be perfectly at peace with himself for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he has caused because of his decision. I don't know about you but I would class that a disaster. In fact, he not only seems to be perfectly able to live with himself but shows no remorse and instead calls for more military action on Iran. The Middle East Peace Envoy, the man who apparently couldn't live with himself if a disaster happened, is still calling for military action. For a country in the Middle East. Got to love Tony.

I also expect people sitting at home to not have the slightest understanding for what war means for civilians. Its a lot easier to call for war and justify it when you're sitting on your dfs couch in Nottingham watching Eastenders.

The increased coalescing of humanitarianism and the military is an incredibly disturbing phenomenon. Not least because humanitarianism is about saving lives and militaries, regardless of what any of us think about our 'heroes', are designed to kill.

And Saddam killed maybe a million people over his 24 years in power, through two wars and state controlled terror. Even in a region of brutal dictators, he was sickening. Disgusting, the worst of the worst. How many have we killed in Iraq? The sanctions? Which did nothing to curb Saddam or remove him from power but which merely killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children? Or how about the invasion and the sectarian civil war we unleashed? How many hundreds of thousands were killed then? Have we killed more Iraqis than Saddam yet? When are Bush and Blair going to get dragged in front of a tribunal? The ICTI maybe? We can but live in hope.

So Humanitarianism is about saving lives? How many Iraqis have we saved from Saddam? Are we out of the negative yet?

And just to outline, we fought a war to 'liberate' a people. 9 years later, precariously placed after civil war, we have regions basically agitating for secession, one of the most secular Arab nations becoming increasingly split along religious lines, the vice president on the run and with Interpol after him, for having run religious death squads and the prime minister hardly a shining beacon of democracy. Great stuff.

I cannot believe there are some people who try to justify this war or Blair's/Bush's actions. Or even worse, try to claim that this war was somehow a trigger for the Arab Spring. :ross:

A card carrying labour ideologue that's who.

 

[Leeds Spur]

And tax avoider

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Erm....no it didn't? Considering that Iraq, the Arabs, the UN inspection team, El-Baradei etc were all telling us what the truth was. Lots of people knew what was going on in Iraq. Including (controversial....Bush and Blair). They wouldn't have needed to make up the 45 minute claim and the ridiculous link with Al-Qaeda (a secular Arab nationalist working with a fundamentalist Sunni terrorist group....yeah ok then).

And yet he seems to be perfectly at peace with himself for the hundreds of thousands of deaths he has caused because of his decision. I don't know about you but I would class that a disaster. In fact, he not only seems to be perfectly able to live with himself but shows no remorse and instead calls for more military action on Iran. The Middle East Peace Envoy, the man who apparently couldn't live with himself if a disaster happened, is still calling for military action. For a country in the Middle East. Got to love Tony.

I also expect people sitting at home to not have the slightest understanding for what war means for civilians. Its a lot easier to call for war and justify it when you're sitting on your dfs couch in Nottingham watching Eastenders.

The increased coalescing of humanitarianism and the military is an incredibly disturbing phenomenon. Not least because humanitarianism is about saving lives and militaries, regardless of what any of us think about our 'heroes', are designed to kill.

And Saddam killed maybe a million people over his 24 years in power, through two wars and state controlled terror. Even in a region of brutal dictators, he was sickening. Disgusting, the worst of the worst. How many have we killed in Iraq? The sanctions? Which did nothing to curb Saddam or remove him from power but which merely killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children? Or how about the invasion and the sectarian civil war we unleashed? How many hundreds of thousands were killed then? Have we killed more Iraqis than Saddam yet? When are Bush and Blair going to get dragged in front of a tribunal? The ICTI maybe? We can but live in hope.

So Humanitarianism is about saving lives? How many Iraqis have we saved from Saddam? Are we out of the negative yet?

And just to outline, we fought a war to 'liberate' a people. 9 years later, precariously placed after civil war, we have regions basically agitating for secession, one of the most secular Arab nations becoming increasingly split along religious lines, the vice president on the run and with Interpol after him, for having run religious death squads and the prime minister hardly a shining beacon of democracy. Great stuff.

I cannot believe there are some people who try to justify this war or Blair's/Bush's actions. Or even worse, try to claim that this war was somehow a trigger for the Arab Spring. :ross:

A truly great post there buddy.

Your totally right about how some people in the west talk about war we should remember more often about how many people will be killed.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

A card carrying labour ideologue that's who.

Are Cameron and his fellow tories not in support of all this then? Sorry, I must be mistaken because.... I thought they were.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Yeah, they were fooled like the rest of us. They don't wt all the security briefings like the MoD do. fudge me are you really that naive? You'll note that we have no trips left in Iraq? And are reducing levels in Afghanistan.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Yeah, they were fooled like the rest of us. They don't wt all the security briefings like the MoD do. fudge me are you really that naive? You'll note that we have no trips left in Iraq? And are reducing levels in Afghanistan.

So you are seriously saying that given the information available at the time, a tory government would not have committed troops? I'll bet you believe in the tooth fairy too. This is why I do not take anything you say seriously, because it is often nothing but propaganda. Support for the Iraqi war has been bipartisan. Doesnt say much for the tories anyway, if they were as easily duped as you suggest. Who would vote for them?

 

[DanishWhite]

Denmarks labour PM is the worlds bigget hypocrite too.

- When she and her husband (A certain Mr. Kinnock, ring a bell?) needed to co-own their luxury central city pad, he declared to be a Danish resident (you have to be a resident to own real estate). Very nice neighbourhood, no dirty workers there. Let alone immigrants, good greif !
- When he had to pay income tax, he claimed then to be a Swiss resident
- When our honourable PM then had to pay her own income tax, she was married to a man, who had no accountable income tax in Denmark. Yet she found it perfectly sound, to submit her taxes not only with her own personal income deductible sum (a base level of annual income free of tax, aprox 6000€ per capita) but also used her husbands deductible sum (a tax advantage intended for married couples, where they can share each others deductible base sum) - ergo: They claimed he wasn't a danish tax subject when paying, yet when enjoying advantages she claimed he was. And got away with it.
- The finally she won an election on promoting public schools (everything from "enforcing" them to banning private schools outright, depending on interpretation) she moved her kids out of public school to the countrys most prestigious non-boarding school. Along with several other heads of the new labour government.

All in all - Just another day in the life of Labour.

 

[DanishWhite]

Regarding the Iraq war, Afghanistan war and others:

It's ever so interesting seeing how people never mention the people who died BEFORE the west got involved. It's as if those victims never existed.

Even today reports go wild when a bomb goes off in Iraq. A bomb as in locals slaughtering other locals.

Yet last year a 6 digit number where butchered like cattle in Sudan, but that's not interesting, is it ?

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your executioners wisely.

 

[camspur]

Regarding the Iraq war, Afghanistan war and others:

It's ever so interesting seeing how people never mention the people who died BEFORE the west got involved. It's as if those victims never existed.

Even today reports go wild when a bomb goes off in Iraq. A bomb as in locals slaughtering other locals.

Yet last year a 6 digit number where butchered like cattle in Sudan, but that's not interesting, is it ?

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your executioners wisely.

Spot on, if the "West" goes into Syria now it'll be all about the number of people they kill not how much death the current regime has caused.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Regarding the Iraq war, Afghanistan war and others:

It's ever so interesting seeing how people never mention the people who died BEFORE the west got involved. It's as if those victims never existed.

Even today reports go wild when a bomb goes off in Iraq. A bomb as in locals slaughtering other locals.

Yet last year a 6 digit number where butchered like cattle in Sudan, but that's not interesting, is it ?

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your executioners wisely.

The ONLY reason we went in was the 45 minute claim. Because we were told saddam could hit London directly with an attack. It was NEVER for regime change. There are ****s all over the world and we don't steam in with 160,000 troops each time do we? This was all about a revenge mission for bush jr and a few billion barrels of oil. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Are we arguing we should be the world police then? Shall we get an international force for good together? Who gets 'liberated' first? Remember, one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Interesting.

 

[Leeds Spur]

So you are seriously saying that given the information available at the time, a tory government would not have committed troops? I'll bet you believe in the tooth fairy too. This is why I do not take anything you say seriously, because it is often nothing but propaganda. Support for the Iraqi war has been bipartisan. Doesnt say much for the tories anyway, if they were as easily duped as you suggest. Who would vote for them?

It was bipartisan based on the dodgy dossier. End I discussion. If Blair say its about regime change because Saddam is a very naughty boy, no chance. Only ****s vote labour

 

[scaramanga]

Are we arguing we should be the world police then? Shall we get an international force for good together? Who gets 'liberated' first? Remember, one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Interesting.

Who do you mean by "we"?

I believe that as a democracy with some reasonably big guns then we have a responsibility to spread that democracy wherever some nutjob runs a place for life because people believe his imaginary friend told him that was his birthright. How that is done will depend entirely on the nature of said nutjob.

If he's an entirely peaceful person then hopefully some education of the masses will be enough to instill a democracy - if he's a violent genocidal fudger then, reluctantly, we'll almost always have to fight fire with Apache helicopters.

 

[Hootnow]

Regarding the Iraq war, Afghanistan war and others:

It's ever so interesting seeing how people never mention the people who died BEFORE the west got involved. It's as if those victims never existed.

Even today reports go wild when a bomb goes off in Iraq. A bomb as in locals slaughtering other locals.

Yet last year a 6 digit number where butchered like cattle in Sudan, but that's not interesting, is it ?

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your executioners wisely.

Yep, no-one mentions the numbers killed. Other than me in my post just above and the war criminals from the West (sorry, we don't have war criminals do we? the war heroes from the West, Blair and Bush) were desperate in mentioning it as a justification after their fake WMDs surprisingly failed to materialise.

And I think few people who attack the West over the sanctions and the Iraq war are great fans of Saddam. He was a scumbag. The worst of the worst in a region of disgusting dictators. But why are we really that different? Oh we don't do it to our own people? That's great but we dehumanise the 'others' so much, there's no problem in killing them. We've killed more people than Saddam through our sanctions and second gulf war. So who is the vicious genocidaire?

Someone I know always says we're no more civil than we were 2000 years ago. We just do our killing in suits now. A big of an exaggeration for sure but I don't think he's far off. The West's conduct towards Iraq since 1991 has been nothing short of disgusting:


When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: ÔÇ£This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.ÔÇØ

Governor Robertson:

"Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.

Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes."

Great stuff.

And just to clarify, that's not correct. You hear about the car bombs in your media when they kill dozens of Iraqis or any NATO servicemen. You don't hear the much less interesting stuff which comes on the Arabic media, basically every day, as well as Iraqis with family in Iraq, of bombs and deaths on an almost daily basis. Its not really a surprise either that, even if the Western media were reporting every single bomb, they would focus more in Iraq. We caused that mess.

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your natural resource abundance and geo-strategic importance wisely

Fixed that last bit for you.

 

[Hootnow]

Who do you mean by "we"?

I believe that as a democracy with some reasonably big guns then we have a responsibility to spread that democracy wherever some nutjob runs a place for life because people believe his imaginary friend told him that was his birthright. How that is done will depend entirely on the nature of said nutjob.

If he's an entirely peaceful person then hopefully some education of the masses will be enough to instill a democracy - if he's a violent genocidal fudger then, reluctantly, we'll almost always have to fight fire with Apache helicopters.

Saddam was the most secular leader in the Middle East, beyond others like Mubarak and Assad, and certainly more than the extreme Gulf monarchies or the nutters who've taken hold of Iran.

We don't have a responsibility to spread democracy. How many times have we tried to implement democracy through violence? How many times has it actually worked?

When are we invading Saudi, maybe the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world, which has funded sunni militias in Iraq, which teaches its extreme version of Islam worldwide, which imo provides a greater threat to peace than Iran? When are we invading Bahrain? Wait, we not only sell those two advanced military hardware but we have military bases there? Yep, we're there pushing for democracy.

We only get involved under the banner of 'democracy' when it suits us, geopolitically, strategically and in terms of natural resources. For others, who cares right? No-one gives a fudge about those, where's their oil? Where's their threat to an ally? They can be allowed to die as they wish.

 

[africanspurs]

Regarding the Iraq war, Afghanistan war and others:

It's ever so interesting seeing how people never mention the people who died BEFORE the west got involved. It's as if those victims never existed.

Even today reports go wild when a bomb goes off in Iraq. A bomb as in locals slaughtering other locals.

Yet last year a 6 digit number where butchered like cattle in Sudan, but that's not interesting, is it ?

One thing's for sure. Beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to be remembered as a victim of genocide, you sure have to pick your executioners wisely.

pretty sure if they dont go in then people wont be able to blame the atrocities on the west.

you are right though, most people really dont care what happens in the third world until it involves them alot more. Add to that a bit of propaganda and exposure and you have people talking about it.

but here is the thing.....its the west that dont really care what goes on outside its areas of interest. people from poorer nations around bad events DO care.....its just not really shown

 

[africanspurs]

i am surprised though that alot of people posuting in his thread have issues with their leaders having religious faith

 

[Hootnow]

So you are seriously saying that given the information available at the time, a tory government would not have committed troops? I'll bet you believe in the tooth fairy too. This is why I do not take anything you say seriously, because it is often nothing but propaganda. Support for the Iraqi war has been bipartisan. Doesnt say much for the tories anyway, if they were as easily duped as you suggest. Who would vote for them?

Why the fudge has this turned into a labour vs conservative thing? I'm not great fan of the conservatives but this is flimflam. The information available at the time was crap, based on easy to debunk lies. We had neither UNSC backing, UN inspector backing, general UN backing or our own population's backing. Tony Blair was a prick of the highest order, who you could hardly call a champion for the working class and who has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands following the orders of his two superiors, GHod and Bush. And you want to turn this into a labour vs Tory argument?