Blair avoids protesters on his day at the Iraq Inquiry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

we went to war, you have to expect casualties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardemax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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?

Quote:

---

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....ad-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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.