Blair avoids protesters on his day at the Iraq Inquiry

[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.