• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Glenda's Legs said:
Fair observation. Except we didn't go to war based on what Saddam might have done to his own country (he had been happily gassing for quite some time and we didn't feel the need to intervene), it was on the risk he posed to the West, and it is the level of that risk which is/was under debate.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember that at the time the case based on his internal actions was pretty sound. That wasn't winning the general public over (who, let's face it, are pretty difficult to motivate into caring about some brown people halfway across the world) so the case was made for missile-based WMDs.

As far as I'm concerned, the moral case for the war already existed but more was needed to sell it to the same public who said "Where?" when the UN refused to help in Rwanda and applauded Labour for not intervening in Syria when it was so desperately required.
 
glasgowspur said:
A few posts have alluded to beating the terrorists quickly after 9/11. I see that as fanciful.
They are well supported and religiously motivated. Their argument/message is not one we can counter except over generations.
There is no quick answer to this.
Click to expand...

I don't think they could have been beaten quickly or easily. But my recollection at the time (and my recollection may be wrong) is that Al Quaeda was pretty localised in Afghanistan and maybe If attention hadn't been diverted elsewhere things might have been different. Since then their influence has spread and spawned other groups and the actions of the West in the Middle East and North Africa have added fuel to the fire. Of course that is all supposition on my part as we will never know whether things could have been different but there was clearly a fight to be fought and finished in Afganistan at the time, less obviously so in Iraq.
 
scaramanga said:
Or Saddam might have gassed half his country out of existence and those same people who are calling Blair a war criminal would be protesting because he didn't do anything to protect innocent Iraqis.

We can only guess what the outcomes would have been. The only constant is that those who like to protest would be protesting because it makes them feel nice and saves them doing real world stuff like making difficult decisions.
Click to expand...

But he didn't have the chemical/biological weapons to do so at the point we went to war, did he? And they had evidence that also supported that view but chose to go with 'evidence' that made the case for invasion. Blair's "real world, difficult decision" was to support Bush or not support him. He chose to 'be with him, whatever', make a dodgy case for the war and a complete mess of the aftermath. And he gets rightly pilloried for this. The fact that other interventions were right or wrong doesn't excuse the way Blair went about making the case for this war. Add to what has happened in that part of the world subsequently, in large part as a result of this conflict, and the war can only be seen as a terrible, terrible mistake.

Containment was the official British policy re. Saddam up to that point, and it was working. And that was a lot better than a failed state, millions dead or displaced, ISIS and the whirlwind of terrorism we reap due to their rise.

Blair might not be a war criminal, he's a lying qunt though. Anyway, what's done is done. I'm off to bed.
 
One only needs to do a little bit of research into the corporations that benefited from the 'war' to understand why the WMD reasoning to go in, and the 'threat' Iraq posed to so called Western civilisation was a fabrication. I still love that line from either Rumsfeld or Cheney, when asked where the WMD's were, replying (I can't find a link right now so paraphrasing) 'they are in the east, west, south and/or..er north of Iraq'.

My personal thoughts are that the end game is to take back control of or destroy Iran. Israel backed by its big brother the US have alluded as such. I hope they do try it, because I genuinely think they'll get their arses handed to them on a plate.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk
 
StephenH said:
I'm sad because you want retribution for people who subsequently make mistakes!

It's so common in todays world.

If we don't stop we will end up with nobody taking any tough descisions for fear of jail and retribution. I wonder what today's media lead Facebook/Twitter world would make of Harry S. Truman and the dropping of the A-bomb?

We must stop this 'Somebody must pay" attitude! We all pay as we hopefully learn.
Click to expand...

This would be a warm and wonderful statement if I believed you actively exercised the thought across our entire society. It is also disingenuous. You say that
"If we don't stop we will end up with nobody taking any tough descisions for fear of jail and retribution" as if every tough decision
a) needs to be made and
b) is the right one
c) is related to this one!
This decision did not need to be made. And the 'tough decision' was the wrong one. Strip away the layers and look at the simple facts we know about 9/11, and then explain rationally how anyone could thing bombing Iraq/killing Saddam Hussein was related? Not 'hindsight', just sight. As for the 'we must stop with somebody must pay' attitudes, again, a noble thought but one which rarely (if ever) extends to anyone who cannot afford a 7 figure barrister. So in this case? yes. He should own it. With big balls. Not little ones. Not smug ones. Just real ones. There again, I can categorically tell you, from the moment he was elected off the back of Stephanopolous's work, I knew what he was.
 
StephenH said:
I think you are a little over the top now.
Blair and Nazis.....Time for me to go.
Click to expand...

https://www.iraqbodycount.org

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tony-blair...divided-chaotic-sectarian-ever-before-1503191

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-collapse-iraq-the-rise-isis-made-america-13913


“I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he (Tony Blair) declared.


Look mate...there are certainly many, many situations where the greater good comes from moving on when mistakes are made or wholly admitted. For me, this is not one of them.
The Iraq body-count is only a portion of the deaths and increased hostilities which have seen things go to hell in the Middle East, and Blair played his own very, VERY intricate role in making sure it all kicked off.
 
scaramanga said:
I seem to remember that at the time the case based on his internal actions was pretty sound. That wasn't winning the general public over (who, let's face it, are pretty difficult to motivate into caring about some brown people halfway across the world) so the case was made for missile-based WMDs.

As far as I'm concerned, the moral case for the war already existed but more was needed to sell it to the same public who said "Where?" when the UN refused to help in Rwanda and applauded Labour for not intervening in Syria when it was so desperately required.
Click to expand...

I noticed in a later post you made reference to what might've happened had Saddam gassed more kurds. Nobody knew more about what he had/hadn't/would/wouldn't do than the people who greased his path to power and kept him in munitions, etc until such a time as he had outlived his purpose/served a greater purpose by being the new 'boogieman'. I know you place this sort of thinking in 'tin-hat' territory, but it's the truth. It's out there for all to see. There are plenty of books on these situations. As for Rwanda, a disgrace. Clinton should never have been let off the hook so freely (HE was the factor, the UN - via Gen Dellaire, were the ones ASKING for more troops but the US, as the power-brokers, basically owned the fudging thing). as for Syria, do me a favor. Blair was considering suggesting to the Queen that she KNIGHT Assad back in 2012, two years later Cameron wanted him ousted, another savage lap-dog who'd out-lived his purpose. I wish we'd thought of the Syrian people that before fudging around with that roostertail years ago! And what intervention would you have wanted? Air-strikes? See, THIS is the sort of thing we needed to consider as carefully with Iraq back in the day. Air-striking Syria with both Isis and Putin lurking in the country could quite possibly have led to enormously worse condition and reprisals...
 
scaramanga said:
Or Saddam might have gassed half his country out of existence and those same people who are calling Blair a war criminal would be protesting because he didn't do anything to protect innocent Iraqis.

We can only guess what the outcomes would have been. The only constant is that those who like to protest would be protesting because it makes them feel nice and saves them doing real world stuff like making difficult decisions.
Click to expand...

Your patronization cannot disguise the paucity of your argument. In fact, I'd expect better of you (well you had to expect that I'd rise up and indulge in a bit of 'cheap patro-ing myself right? ;))...

Anyway, as much because I'm becoming a thread hog and a nuisance, Should really bow out...as always, a good discussion here!
 
thfcsteff said:
I noticed in a later post you made reference to what might've happened had Saddam gassed more kurds. Nobody knew more about what he had/hadn't/would/wouldn't do than the people who greased his path to power and kept him in munitions, etc until such a time as he had outlived his purpose/served a greater purpose by being the new 'boogieman'. I know you place this sort of thinking in 'tin-hat' territory, but it's the truth. It's out there for all to see. There are plenty of books on these situations. As for Rwanda, a disgrace. Clinton should never have been let off the hook so freely (HE was the factor, the UN - via Gen Dellaire, were the ones ASKING for more troops but the US, as the power-brokers, basically owned the fudgeing thing). as for Syria, do me a favor. Blair was considering suggesting to the Queen that she KNIGHT Assad back in 2012, two years later Cameron wanted him ousted, another savage lap-dog who'd out-lived his purpose. I wish we'd thought of the Syrian people that before fudgeing around with that roostertail years ago! And what intervention would you have wanted? Air-strikes? See, THIS is the sort of thing we needed to consider as carefully with Iraq back in the day. Air-striking Syria with both Isis and Putin lurking in the country could quite possibly have led to enormously worse condition and reprisals...
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that historical actions were correct, take a look into the sunk cost fallacy.

Once those actions have been taken, right or wrong, the best decision at any point has to disregard those decisions and come to the best solution for the future. The best solutions at those points were to rid the world of Hussein and Assad. Previous rights and wrongs need to be analysed, but not in the context of what's right at that time.
 
thfcsteff said:
Your patronization cannot disguise the paucity of your argument. In fact, I'd expect better of you (well you had to expect that I'd rise up and indulge in a bit of 'cheap patro-ing myself right? ;))...

Anyway, as much because I'm becoming a thread hog and a nuisance, Should really bow out...as always, a good discussion here!
Click to expand...
Come on, you've been to these things. There are very large numbers of serial protesters who will protest anything as long as it makes life difficult for those they disagree with politically.

I went on a protest once because a good mate of mine wanted to put it in a girl who was on the protest (he was successful, the protest wasn't). I know from first hand experience that a lot of people just want to be seen on a protest. Plenty more wouldn't have turned up if they'd had something better to do. Lots of other people don't wash nearly enough.
 
Is Brexit the new Iraq war.
Will Boris and Gove be made to atone for there sins...... made to walk through London escorted by a good looking naked woman
 
They held a hustings event this morning and Penny Mordaunt called on those present to march on Parliament
 
milo said:
They held a hustings event this morning and Penny Mordaunt called on those present to march on Parliament
Click to expand...
She's just an attention seeker.

One of our factories is in her constituency though and she's a very good local MP.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Fair observation. Except we didn't go to war based on what Saddam might have done to his own country (he had been happily gassing for quite some time and we didn't feel the need to intervene), it was on the risk he posed to the West, and it is the level of that risk which is/was under debate.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we went because Bush wanted to and Blair like a kiss ass puppy went along with him and did so by lying about it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back