Blair avoids protesters on his day at the Iraq Inquiry

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246958/Tony-Blair-Iraq-inquiry-Former-PM-refuses-face-public-sneaks-early.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm



Blair: 9/11 changed everything, Saddam had to go



I'd do it all again, defiant ex-PM declares



'Monster' could have killed millions in chemical attack



Iran is new threat that could warrant intervention



Fury as he arrives early and goes in through the back



Families of war dead walk out in disgust at 'smug' Blair



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/29/article-1246958-08136931000005DC-434_634x410.jpg



Tony Blair was defiant today as he admitted he had made clear he would join the U.S. in a war to topple Saddam Hussein after 9/11 even if they failed to get UN backing. The former prime minister said the terror attacks in New York convinced him he could not 'run the risk' of allowing the dictator to carry out an atrocity using chemical, biological or nuclear missiles. Mr Blair was branded 'cowardly' after sneaking inside two hours early for his long-awaited appearance before the Iraq inquiry, meaning he avoided a gauntlet of hate through protesters.

To the disgust of families of dead soldiers, he offered no apology for taking Britain to war despite the lack of concrete proof about weapons of mass destruction and said he would do it all again. As hundreds of protesters demonstrated outside, Mr Blair described Saddam as a 'monster' and 'psychopath' who was intending to develop an arsenal of WMDs. But relatives of soldiers who died in the conflict watching his evidence were repulsed at his attitude, accusing him of 'smirking'. One walked out after an hour, branding the inquiry a 'waste of time'.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/29/article-1246958-08121031000005DC-942_634x416.jpg



Mr Blair told the Chilcot inquiry he assured George W. Bush in April 2002 that 'if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this [Iraq] diplomatically, we would be with him.' He admitted the controversial claim in a September 2002 dossier that Iraq could deploy WMD in 45 minutes was a mistake that had later 'assumed a vastly greater significance'.But he denied duping the nation over the justification for war, insisting: 'This is not a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, it was decision I had to take.'He also defended saying in the dossier that the intelligence had established 'beyond doubt' that Saddam the weapons. 'I believed it was beyond doubt,' he said.

And he dismissed claims he secretly 'signed in blood' to war at the April summit in Texas, almost a year before the invasion, insisting that the means of removing Saddam was left open. 'It was obviously a possibility that military action would be the outcome of what was going to happen. So there was a general discussion of the possibility of going down the military route, but obviously we were arguing very much for that to be if the UN route failed.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/29/article-1246958-08132280000005DC-534_634x412.jpg


I watched an hour or so of it and boy is he as good as ever at avoiding questions/telling lies. The man trails off to something totally unrelated when asked a question and its hard not to get lost listening to him. The only way you can pin someone like Tony Blair is to have someone who will not only question him but will question his answers. 'Sorry Mr Blair but thats not answering the question, please try again.' - The thing with Blair is that he makes a very convincing liar because he actually appears to believe his own lies, then again I suppose you have to when you have over a million deaths hanging over you.

I really feel for the families who sons and daughters were killed over a lie, Mr Blair still has his kids - those families can never see or speak to their sons/daughters ever again. What did they die for?

[Tash.]

Of course Blair is good at twisting his arguments, he's a lawyer and he's married to one, that's what he was trained to do. Not only this but he's a politician so again, trained to avoid awkward questions by diverting the questions off on to another topic.

Anyway, yes I feel dreadfully sorry for those who have lost their lives/children because of this, but regardless of this they were not forced to joint the armed services. They did so out of choice and a very good one if you're brave enough. But to me if you join any of the armed services you do so with the knowledge that if called to fight you do it and if you die then that is a risk of the job. This is not me being cold hearted, but honestly, you do not join the armed services and expect to not fight. No matter how their son/daughter was killed these families are going to be upset about it because that's human nature. When we're upset we find someone to blame for it and we stick to it until we feel a sense of justice. To me it wouldn't matter how these poor people died, there would still be upset about the circumstances.

[BeanEgg]

Born guilty.

You can just see the oil in his eyes. :@

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course Blair is good at twisting his arguments, he's a lawyer and he's married to one, that's what he was trained to do. Not only this but he's a politician so again, trained to avoid awkward questions by diverting the questions off on to another topic.

Anyway, yes I feel dreadfully sorry for those who have lost their lives/children because of this, but regardless of this they were not forced to joint the armed services. They did so out of choice and a very good one if you're brave enough. But to me if you join any of the armed services you do so with the knowledge that if called to fight you do it and if you die then that is a risk of the job. This is not me being cold hearted, but honestly, you do not join the armed services and expect to not fight. No matter how their son/daughter was killed these families are going to be upset about it because that's human nature. When we're upset we find someone to blame for it and we stick to it until we feel a sense of justice. To me it wouldn't matter how these poor people died, there would still be upset about the circumstances.

You expect your government to send you into harms way only when it is absolutely necessary - Iraq was not necessary. Why do they want somebody to blame(?), well the simple answer is because the Prime Minister sent their son/daughter into a war for no reason at all and they have lost their life because of that.

[Tash.]

You expect your government to send you into harms way only when it is absolutely necessary - Iraq was not necessary. Why do they want somebody to blame(?), well the simple answer is because the Prime Minister sent their son/daughter into a war for no reason at all and they have lost their life because of that.

'When absolutely necessary' is a relative term and means different things to different people. Some believed that WWI and WWII were not necessary wars to be engaged in but nobody would argue now that they weren't necessary. It's all a matter of perception. My belief is that on the whole the Iraq war was necessary even if not for the purpose that was originally stated.

[Yoshimitsui]

As much as i feel sorry for all those who have died and their families, you cannot pin it all on one man simply because he was the one to sign the paper or what havyer. Disregarding all the political rubbish that he was the one who made everyone go and so its all his fault is utter stupidity.

There were many people involved in the setup and construction of starting the Iraq war, it was necessary as we were suffering long down the line and the same goes for Afghanistan.

So what if the guy used a back door to avoid being mobbed by everyone wanting to mash his head in for something he can't be entirely blamed for. He made the final decision yes, but he did it for the right reasons.

[Bun]

woah, bias aside, i thought he handled it really well? :S you can't moan if your child dies in the army for going to war, that's like moaning about a fireman dying in a fire. fires, like war, aren't wanted by anyone but are unavoidable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

'When absolutely necessary' is a relative term and means different things to different people. Some believed that WWI and WWII were not necessary wars to be engaged in but nobody would argue now that they weren't necessary. It's all a matter of perception. My belief is that on the whole the Iraq war was necessary even if not for the purpose that was originally stated.

WW1 and WW2 were necessary as they were vital to national security aka they posed a threat. The invasion of Iraq is nothing like and cannot be compared to WW1 and WW2. On Iraq if you do believe it was necessary as does Mr Blair, when will you be proposing to invade North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and China who have far more dangerous and evil regimes than the Ba'ath regime in Iraq?

Oh wait, we don't want to touch any of them because they can give us a smack in the face back. We were nothing but cowardly bullies.


As much as i feel sorry for all those who have died and their families, you cannot pin it all on one man simply because he was the one to sign the paper or what havyer. Disregarding all the political rubbish that he was the one who made everyone go and so its all his fault is utter stupidity.

There were many people involved in the setup and construction of starting the Iraq war, it was necessary as we were suffering long down the line and the same goes for Afghanistan.

So what if the guy used a back door to avoid being mobbed by everyone wanting to mash his head in for something he can't be entirely blamed for. He made the final decision yes, but he did it for the right reasons.

What were we suffering from Iraq?

There were no terrorists in Iraq and Iraq and Saddam posed no threat to the western world or his neighbours, infact when the Bush Administration gained office numerous high figures such as Colin Powell stated when asked if Iraq posed a threat, that Iraq did not pose any threat.


woah, bias aside, i thought he handled it really well? :S you can't moan if your child dies in the army for going to war, that's like moaning about a fireman dying in a fire. fires, like war, aren't wanted by anyone but are unavoidable.

The Iraq war was not unavoidable, it was chosen. That is the vital difference between WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Cold War and the Falklands War. We chose to send our men and women into a war, and for what exactly?

[Yoshimitsui]

So 9/11, 7/7 and all other attempted terrorist attacks don't count? Because the so called leaders and initiators of these attacks have resided in many of these places and are known to be involved in their coordination. The Taliban and all the other things they call themselves all seem to fall back to the same leaders who carried out these tasks.

And don't come back and say George Bush had the bombs planted in the world trade centre.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So 9/11, 7/7 and all other attempted terrorist attacks don't count? Because the so called leaders and initiators of these attacks have resided in many of these places and are known to be involved in their coordination. The Taliban and all the other things they call themselves all seem to fall back to the same leaders who carried out these tasks.

And don't come back and say George Bush had the bombs planted in the world trade centre.

So would you care to tell me how a Saudi Arabian living in Afghanistan had anything to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

[Tash.]

WW1 and WW2 were necessary as they were vital to national security aka they posed a threat. The invasion of Iraq is nothing like and cannot be compared to WW1 and WW2. On Iraq if you do believe it was necessary as does Mr Blair, when will you be proposing to invade North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and China who have far more dangerous and evil regimes than the Ba'ath regime in Iraq?

Oh wait, we don't want to touch any of them because they can give us a smack in the face back. We were nothing but cowardly bullies.



What were we suffering from Iraq?

There were no terrorists in Iraq and Iraq and Saddam posed no threat to the western world or his neighbours, infact when the Bush Administration gained office numerous high figures such as Colin Powell stated when asked if Iraq posed a threat, that Iraq did not pose any threat.



The Iraq war was not unavoidable, it was chosen. That is the vital difference between WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Cold War and the Falklands War. We chose to send our men and women into a war, and for what exactly?

We weren't suffering from them at all, but we're not a selfish nation.. or at least I thought we weren't but judging by a few posts i've seen from you recently i'd question whether that is true or not. Iraq may not have been a danger to our National Security but Hussein was not a nice man. He routinely murdered thousands of kurds because they were not the correct type of muslim.. justice? I think not. And no, I don't think that Iran or any of the others will be 'picked on' as you put it, but not because we'd 'get a smack back in the face'. Why should we be a peace making country when all we get is trouble from others from outside of the country, and more dispicably from within from people such as yourselves. I can't imagine that those who fought and died in this war would like the fact that you are referring to their fight as one that was not needed. They died with honour doing something they loved (nobody would be in the army if they didn't love it) fighting for the protection of a country.

[Yoshimitsui]

Im referring to leaders who commit their hit and runs and move on wherever next. Those involved in the plot of the attacks and through many different people whittle down to these groups we end up fighting. I can't provide a full on factual correlation as you full well know because if we knew that then obviously we would be catching these people.

Somewhere is a link between it all, catch bin laden, maybe then i can give you the exact answer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

We weren't suffering from them at all, but we're not a selfish nation.. or at least I thought we weren't but judging by a few posts i've seen from you recently i'd question whether that is true or not. Iraq may not have been a danger to our National Security but Hussein was not a nice man. He routinely murdered thousands of kurds because they were not the correct type of muslim.. justice? I think not. And no, I don't think that Iran or any of the others will be 'picked on' as you put it, but not because we'd 'get a smack back in the face'. Why should we be a peace making country when all we get is trouble from others from outside of the country, and more dispicably from within from people such as yourselves. I can't imagine that those who fought and died in this war would like the fact that you are referring to their fight as one that was not needed. They died with honour doing something they loved (nobody would be in the army if they didn't love it) fighting for the protection of a country.

Ok then, we are not a selfish nation ok - so why do you not support taking urgent military action against Zimbabwe, China, Iran and North Korea?. The regimes of them countries, notably China has been far worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. Infact, the former leader of China killed more people than Adolf Hitler did - why no support for military action there Tash?; could it possibly be that China has a massive operational army with nuclear weapons capable of striking NATO forces back?

On the kurds, while a lot of it was genocide it was not for no reason. The kurds had tried and were constantly trying to find ways to undermine the Iraqi government and overthrow it - of course not all kurds were involved in this, but a lot were. I don't support the usage of chemical weapons in this day and age which is sickening. However you could also view it like this; in WW1 we used chemical weapons to protect our country from invasion, just as the Iraqis used them to protect their country from civil war.

On this country and the military, how is me having an opinion despicable? - especially when my own government lied not only to myself, but also to the soliders in the armed forces about the so-called threat we faced from Saddam Hussein. You say they died for the protection of a country, yet Iraq has never been more unsafe and less democratic.

If you are going to invade countries on the pretext of them being 'not very nice' then you will soon enough find yourself at war with half the world.


Im referring to leaders who commit their hit and runs and move on wherever next. Those involved in the plot of the attacks and through many different people whittle down to these groups we end up fighting. I can't provide a full on factual correlation as you full well know because if we knew that then obviously we would be catching these people.

Somewhere is a link between it all, catch bin laden, maybe then i can give you the exact answer.

It has actually been said that were was no link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. No evidence has been found supporting that, you now tell me to wait until Bin Laden is captured to prove me wrong? - is this for real?

If you are going to invade a country, you do not assume Saddam and Osama are both conspiring against you just because you don't like them. If anything Bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein because Saddam was a moderate muslim, whereas Bin Laden wanted Sharia Law across the world (which Saddam had abolished in Iraq).

[Yoshimitsui]

No evidence has been found, but how do you know any doesn't exist? Unless you are certain bin laden is not responsible. I really don't understand how you can know for certain all this information you come back with?

I also did not state that you invade a country because you don't like some people, there was reasons to invade due to the suffering of people (far, wide, close and near. Im not an expert on the occurrence and events of these wars but applying common sense you can see that it was getting worse. People have died, its unfortunate but when they signed up they knew the risk the job posed and that it wasn't going to sort everything over night.

I have gone of the point of the thread despite how it links but are you trying to say that should we have not gone all would be well in the world? You can't save the world from everything, but you can reduce it, that's the purpose of Iraq in my opinion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No evidence has been found, but how do you know any doesn't exist? Unless you are certain bin laden is not responsible. I really don't understand how you can know for certain all this information you come back with?

I also did not state that you invade a country because you don't like some people, there was reasons to invade due to the suffering of people (far, wide, close and near. Im not an expert on the occurrence and events of these wars but applying common sense you can see that it was getting worse. People have died, its unfortunate but when they signed up they knew the risk the job posed and that it wasn't going to sort everything over night.

I have gone of the point of the thread despite how it links but are you trying to say that should we have not gone all would be well in the world? You can't save the world from everything, but you can reduce it, that's the purpose of Iraq in my opinion.

How do I not know China and Russia are not planning at this very moment to attack the west?

How do I not know that at this moment France and Pakistan and planning to invade Kuwait?

How do I not know that at this very moment the Taliban and Ireland are not going to launch a full-scale invasion of Germany?

How can I be certain that the regime of Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladens Taliban have no link? - because Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein both had seperate idealogies both at the opposite end of the scale, Bin Laden hates westernisation whereas Saddam embraced it far more than his neighbours. I can also be fairly certain because after the invasion of not only Afghanistan but also of Iraq, no documents or no claims have come out what so ever that Iraq and the Taliban were ever working together.

You say saving the world - what did we save the world from when it comes to Iraq?

[Wig44.]

When the west commits mass genocide it's a glorious victory for democracy, when the east commites mass genocide, it's terorrism and corruption.

Iraq was and is to this day just another way to make money.

[Yoshimitsui]

Proving it is a different matter, i don't know how well the two got on and what they were planning and who did what but it all comes down to the same principal of initiating terror and im sure there's a link to it all somewhere. I say no more.

Saving the world was a general comment, not aimed at attempting to save it by invading Iraq. What im saying is that invaded or not along with any other country and disaster all you can do it try your best to make things right, it still wont make everyone happy and there will always those who oppose ideas and those for them.

I leave it here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Proving it is a different matter, i don't know how well the two got on and what they were planning and who did what but it all comes down to the same principal of initiating terror and im sure there's a link to it all somewhere. I say no more.

Saving the world was a general comment, not aimed at attempting to save it by invading Iraq. What im saying is that invaded or not along with any other country and disaster all you can do it try your best to make things right, it still wont make everyone happy and there will always those who oppose ideas and those for them.

I leave it here.

So in other words you are assuming they are behind some sort of plot because you dont like either of them, thus are grouping them both together to create what is basically a fantasy. On the Iraq, you said "You can't save the world from everything, but you can reduce it, that's the purpose of Iraq in my opinion." - now you are backtracking on this, maybe because Iraq posed no threat to the world as there is no evidence as I said earlier, of Iraq being a threat to the western world or its neighbours.


all you can do it try your best to make things right, it still wont make everyone happy and there will always those who oppose ideas and those for them.

Of course, but not at the expense of innocent peoples lives.

[Yoshimitsui]

I didn't word my sentence correctly, the purpose of Iraq being to reduce the problems there and the effect its people have/caused and what ever else we cannot 'prove'. Not an attempt to save the world as you refer to soldiers being sent there for nothing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't word my sentence correctly, the purpose of Iraq being to reduce the problems there and the effect its people have/caused and what ever else we cannot 'prove'. Not an attempt to save the world as you refer to soldiers being sent there for nothing.

The problems in Iraq were only there because of UN sanctions which were imposed by the United States after the Gulf War, thus being the United States who were to blame for a declining Iraq and not the Iraqi government. On its people, they haven't caused any problems and if you are referring to the problems they faced as a nation with their government, very little if none. Iraq was a stable nation due to past actions (which are debatable) that the Iraqi government took.

If we are to invade based on the freedoms of the people/problems faced, half the world would be under our occupation at this very moment. Saddam as not nice, but out of all the fish in the sea he was a very small bait.

[Tash.]

Ok then, we are not a selfish nation ok - so why do you not support taking urgent military action against Zimbabwe, China, Iran and North Korea?. The regimes of them countries, notably China has been far worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. Infact, the former leader of China killed more people than Adolf Hitler did - why no support for military action there Tash?; could it possibly be that China has a massive operational army with nuclear weapons capable of striking NATO forces back?

On the kurds, while a lot of it was genocide it was not for no reason. The kurds had tried and were constantly trying to find ways to undermine the Iraqi government and overthrow it - of course not all kurds were involved in this, but a lot were. I don't support the usage of chemical weapons in this day and age which is sickening. However you could also view it like this; in WW1 we used chemical weapons to protect our country from invasion, just as the Iraqis used them to protect their country from civil war.

On this country and the military, how is me having an opinion despicable? - especially when my own government lied not only to myself, but also to the soliders in the armed forces about the so-called threat we faced from Saddam Hussein. You say they died for the protection of a country, yet Iraq has never been more unsafe and less democratic.

If you are going to invade countries on the pretext of them being 'not very nice' then you will soon enough find yourself at war with half the world.


Now you're just taking things too far. You know we couldn't fight on all those fronts and quite frankly invading a country is a last resort after negotiation. I don't personally think we would attempt to help another country out in the way we did with Iraq.. and why should we? Look at what is happening to Blair. He did alot of good for this country and yet he's remembered for this. Something that was not solely his decision no matter what you say. Yes he was the leader and it is his signature but you are highly naive if you think that it was solely his choice to invade Iraq. I feel sorry for Blair, I don't believe him to be a war-mongering man, that might just be my poor judgement but I don't consider it to be.

No matter how many points you raise for me in Saddam Hussein's defence I will not agree. I think he was a vile man and just because a country appears peaceful does not mean that the citizens are happy. Besides, this wasn't just about Hussein, it was about the other men he employed. Chemical Ali was executed not so long ago, and again he's another reason that I think the Iraq invasion was necessary.

And finally, I don't support military action in Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea or China because all of those coutries, no matter how flawed are attempting reform. Perhaps with the exception of North Korea but I don't know much about that really. Zimbabwe has a somewhat shaky power sharing deal in place, who knows how that will turn out but it is an improvement from just Mugabe. China although it has several flaws with human rights issues, is in negotation with other powers. Iran again has again several issues with opression and vote rigging allegations, but is relatively progressive in it's nature. People within the country are becoming wise to the ways of the political elite and are beginning to protest against it. Becoming involved directly right now is extremely dangerous and not at all recommended.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now you're just taking things too far. You know we couldn't fight on all those fronts and quite frankly invading a country is a last resort after negotiation. I don't personally think we would attempt to help another country out in the way we did with Iraq.. and why should we? Look at what is happening to Blair. He did alot of good for this country and yet he's remembered for this. Something that was not solely his decision no matter what you say. Yes he was the leader and it is his signature but you are highly naive if you think that it was solely his choice to invade Iraq. I feel sorry for Blair, I don't believe him to be a war-mongering man, that might just be my poor judgement but I don't consider it to be.

How on earth did we help Iraq? - over one million dead, its bridges, roads, schools, universities ruined, its government in shambles, its oil fields owned by American contractors, oil truck drivers being paid more than soliders protecting the fields, harsher laws for women - so if you are telling me we have helped Iraq you really need to take a look at that country.

On feeling sorry for Mr Blair, I feel sorry for him too because having the blood of over a million deaths on your hands is not something i'd like either. I know I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, although Mr Blair is the opposite - he can sleep at night and make millions out of Iraq.


No matter how many points you raise for me in Saddam Hussein's defence I will not agree. I think he was a vile man and just because a country appears peaceful does not mean that the citizens are happy. Besides, this wasn't just about Hussein, it was about the other men he employed. Chemical Ali was executed not so long ago, and again he's another reason that I think the Iraq invasion was necessary.

You don't agree because you are choosing to ignore what I am saying. I have given evidence after evidence about the treatment of women, homosexuality, WMD and Iraqi national security yet you continue to blindly ignore every word of it.


And finally, I don't support military action in Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea or China because all of those coutries, no matter how flawed are attempting reform. Perhaps with the exception of North Korea but I don't know much about that really. Zimbabwe has a somewhat shaky power sharing deal in place, who knows how that will turn out but it is an improvement from just Mugabe. China although it has several flaws with human rights issues, is in negotation with other powers. Iran again has again several issues with opression and vote rigging allegations, but is relatively progressive in it's nature. People within the country are becoming wise to the ways of the political elite and are beginning to protest against it. Becoming involved directly right now is extremely dangerous and not at all recommended.

Is this for real?

Zimbabwe attempting reform? - yeah, Mugabe still controls the Army and Police while his people starve to death.

China has several flaws? - people are DISAPPEARING OVERNIGHT. That isn't a flaw, thats something seriously wrong. If you want to find out more on China I suggest you read about the Great Leap Forward.

Iran? - is actually building nuclear power plants and already has one functioning, Iraq had none.

North Korea? - actually HAS nuclear weapons and is not signed up to any nuclear treaties and continues to test nuclear missiles over democratic nations (Japan).

If you are telling me you wouldn't invade them countries because they are in 'reform' then you are in reality covering up to save your own argument;- because I have just shown how flawed the argument that 'Saddam was evil to we had to remove him' is because if that was truly the argument you would also support taking military action against China, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. You don't though because you know them countries are far more brutal than Iraq was and them countries have the capability to strike back.

[Ardemax]

we went to war, you have to expect casualties

[-:Undertaker:-]

we went to war, you have to expect casualties

We went to a war on a lie, you should expect our government to send our soliders only when it is absolutely necessary.

[Tash.]

How on earth did we help Iraq? - over one million dead, its bridges, roads, schools, universities ruined, its government in shambles, its oil fields owned by American contractors, oil truck drivers being paid more than soliders protecting the fields, harsher laws for women - so if you are telling me we have helped Iraq you really need to take a look at that country.

On feeling sorry for Mr Blair, I feel sorry for him too because having the blood of over a million deaths on your hands is not something i'd like either. I know I wouldn't be able to sleep at night, although Mr Blair is the opposite - he can sleep at night and make millions out of Iraq.



You don't agree because you are choosing to ignore what I am saying. I have given evidence after evidence about the treatment of women, homosexuality, WMD and Iraqi national security yet you continue to blindly ignore every word of it.



Is this for real?

Zimbabwe attempting reform? - yeah, Mugabe still controls the Army and Police while his people starve to death.

China has several flaws? - people are DISAPPEARING OVERNIGHT. That isn't a flaw, thats something seriously wrong. If you want to find out more on China I suggest you read about the Great Leap Forward.

Iran? - is actually building nuclear power plants and already has one functioning, Iraq had none.

North Korea? - actually HAS nuclear weapons and is not signed up to any nuclear treaties and continues to test nuclear missiles over democratic nations (Japan).

If you are telling me you wouldn't invade them countries because they are in 'reform' then you are in reality covering up to save your own argument;- because I have just shown how flawed the argument that 'Saddam was evil to we had to remove him' is because if that was truly the argument you would also support taking military action against China, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. You don't though because you know them countries are far more brutal than Iraq was and them countries have the capability to strike back.

I don't actually remember us blowing up their bridges, roads, schools or universities.. oh thats right, we didn't, the maniacs who decided to blow themselves up did. How is that our fault? It isn't. You really confuse me, you have said in another thread that western democracy cannot work in every country and yet you seem to be judging Iraq by a western democratic view? How odd. Please make your mind up.

Blair does not have 1 million deaths on his hands, that's why he can sleep. It isn't solely his fault and as I wrote earlier you're highly naive if you think that he was.

No, you can't say that just because I don't agree with something I aren't listening. I read what you wrote and I do not agree with it. I am actually quite informed in my opinions on alot of things, but I do not agree with a lot of what you say, not just on this topic. It's not a coincidence, I just don't agree with your views.

I've come to the conclusion that you are a pessimist in nature. Not because of what you've posted here specifically but in general. You see the bad parts of every single thing that this government does, never anything good. Similarly you are doing this here. All of those things you said about Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea and China may be true, but there are improvements too and negotiations are ongoing with all these countries not just by the UK but by other peacekeeping nations and organisations. You fail to recognise this, now who is being blind?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't actually remember us blowing up their bridges, roads, schools or universities.. oh thats right, we didn't, the maniacs who decided to blow themselves up did. How is that our fault? It isn't. You really confuse me, you have said in another thread that western democracy cannot work in every country and yet you seem to be judging Iraq by a western democratic view? How odd. Please make your mind up.Oh you don't remember?


http://www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com/war-gallery/baghdad-bombing.jpg


Does that remind you of shock and awe back in 2003? - we blew the bridges up, terrorists were not present in Iraq until after the invasion, by which time we'd already done all the blowing up ourselves in which cultural sites in Iraq were destroyed (Babylon) and their infastructure was destroyed by shock and awe tactics which are very bad when it comes to accuracy, killing thousands of civillians straight away.

Western democracy is not appliable in all countries and I stand by that, however you don't seem to want to accept that the regime of Saddam Hussein was far more westernised and liberal than you choose to believe, hence why are you ignoring everything I say about that regime.


Blair does not have 1 million deaths on his hands, that's why he can sleep. It isn't solely his fault and as I wrote earlier you're highly naive if you think that he was. Oh no its not soley his fault, i'd like to see George W Bush and others also tried for war crimes. Mr Blair has made millions from Iraq, and so have the military corporations in the United States in which the Saudi Bin Laden family also have money invested in, along with the Bush family.


No, you can't say that just because I don't agree with something I aren't listening. I read what you wrote and I do not agree with it. I am actually quite informed in my opinions on alot of things, but I do not agree with a lot of what you say, not just on this topic. It's not a coincidence, I just don't agree with your views.How can you not agree with fact? - it is a fact, I am not making this up I am telling you very clearly how the Ba'ath regime was very liberal compared to other dictatorships around the world. So to say we needed to invade Iraq based on the fact Saddam was a bad man does not stand up i'm afraid.


I've come to the conclusion that you are a pessimist in nature. Not because of what you've posted here specifically but in general. You see the bad parts of every single thing that this government does, never anything good. Similarly you are doing this here. All of those things you said about Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea and China may be true, but there are improvements too and negotiations are ongoing with all these countries not just by the UK but by other peacekeeping nations and organisations. You fail to recognise this, now who is being blind?What because I don't agree with an illegal war which has ripped families apart and benefitted members of the Blair government and Bush administration? - I wouldn't call that pessimist, i'd call that being humane.

They are true, and the truth is that what groundbreaking things are happening Tash in those countries?. China refuses to allow western interference point-blank, North Korea is still as closed as ever. Iran continues to preach hatred against the west and is going ahead with building more nuclear power plants. Zimbabwes people starve while Mugabe and his cronies keep the influential parts of government (army and such) while the MDC is given sideline parts which have no effect.

What progress, are we living on different planets?

If you want progress, heres some that came from Iraq before the 2003 invasion; Iraq co-operated with the United Nations weapons inspectors and they found nothing yet we still went to invade them. Progress only when we want to see it, hey?

[Wig44.]

Are people forgetting that Saddam Hussein was trained by the CIA? People always miss the bigger picture anyway, these 2 wars were NEVER for 'homeland security' but had everything to do with increased spending by the government. Money is printed at interest, that causes a self perpetuating debt and that interest goes into the pockets of bankers, who bankroll campaigns, projects, 'personal' fees of the politicians, control the politicians, it's all makes a group of people rich. Corporations (tend to be run by friends, family or even some of the bankers themselves) are in on it too, they get handed all the raw resources and corporations from iraq & afghanistan.

Increased spending by the government = more debt = more profit for a rich few. Debt = profit and profit = debt = more profit, rinse and repeat. People aren't going to like this but our soldiers died for absolutely nothing at all. There is no honour in dieing in war, and in this particular war not only is it not honourable to have died fighting in it, it is totally unecessary and a total waste.