This Is What They Think Of You.

[screech]

Bush and Blairs messages and phone calls to each other in the lead up to the illegal Iraq war have not been fully released, instead you are given the censored watered down version that is a disgrace to those that were sent to die for their war.

These two should have shared the same rope as Saddam Hussein, they have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands in the middle east.

This just goes to show how right people were all along about the lies Blair tried to feed the people. Absolute shit of a man.

[Monkeh]

I use to like blair until that war....

Problem is by watering it down says you have something to hide therefore it will never go away until it does happen,

Shame on everyone involved

[Red-Robbo]

Bush and Blairs messages and phone calls to each other in the lead up to the illegal Iraq war have not been fully released, instead you are given the censored watered down version that is a disgrace to those that were sent to die for their war.

These two should have shared the same rope as Saddam Hussein, they have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands in the middle east.

This just goes to show how right people were all along about the lies Blair tried to feed the people. Absolute shit of a man.

While I would agree with your post - especially the last sentence - and I always opposed the war, indeed I went in the huge million-person march that was totally ignored by politicians from all sides of the HoC when they voted to support "intervention" I do think hundreds of thousands would've died in Iraq without Blair and Dubya's help.

Saddam had already killed about 100,000 Shia and similar numbers of Kurds after the first Gulf War - and that's before we get into the disappeared political prisoners. And let's not forget that 1.25m died in the Iran-Iraq War, sparked by Saddam's invasion of "Arab" parts of Iran. The country was a tinderbox of religious and ethnic tensions that would've gone off at some time very soon. The allies actually killed very few Iraqis - other Iraqis are doing all that.

Knowing this, of course, is an even bigger reason for us to have kept the f- away from the area.

The whole decision making progress should be examined in the open.

['Orns]

While I would agree with your post - especially the last sentence - and I always opposed the war, indeed I went in the huge million-person march that was totally ignored by politicians from all sides of the HoC when they voted to support "intervention" I do think hundreds of thousands would've died in Iraq without Blair and Dubya's help.

Saddam had already killed about 100,000 Shia and similar numbers of Kurds after the first Gulf War - and that's before we get into the disappeared political prisoners. And let's not forget that 1.25m died in the Iran-Iraq War, sparked by Saddam's invasion of "Arab" parts of Iran. The country was a tinderbox of religious and ethnic tensions that would've gone off at some time very soon. The allies actually killed very few Iraqis - other Iraqis are doing all that.

Knowing this, of course, is an even bigger reason for us to have kept the f- away from the area.

The whole decision making progress should be examined in the open.

 

Bang on Robbo. Saddam was a despot of the highest order, he had to be stopped

 

There a handful of people making the big decisions who need to answer a lot of questions, but I can't imagine that life for the people persecuted by Saddam isn't a hell of a lot better now

 

Such is the world we live in

[TRL]

Bang on Robbo. Saddam was a despot of the highest order, he had to be stopped

There a handful of people making the big decisions who need to answer a lot of questions, but I can't imagine that life for the people persecuted by Saddam isn't a hell of a lot better now

Such is the world we live in

There are many despots in this world. Not so many we helped fund.

All done for ulterior motives else we would be the world police cleaning up North Korea and other such countries.

I fully expect life is pretty bad for many Iraqis with or without him. The amount of killings and bombings in Iraq has increased so much. Is state sponsored killings abduction murder and torture any worse than terrorist bombings murder and tortured?

I'm not so sure. Your everyday Iraqi, from what I understand live in just as much fear now as they ever did.

[Scrumpylegs]

I must admit I really find all this 'war criminal' b###s##t offensive in the extreme. Facts are that lots of people supported this war at the time. Saddam had used WMD against his own people (on more than one occasion) and it seemed reasonable at that time to assume that he still had them. He had started a war with Iran (and later Kuwait) that led to the deaths of 1 million people. He ruled his population by fear and intimidation and was all set to hand the baton down to his (even more psychotic) sons. No British soldier died in vain in Iraq and to suggest otherwise is an insult to their memories. What would have happened had Blair/Bush not intervened can only be a matter of speculation now but Saddam was not about to stop killing that's for sure!! I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush but leaders have to make tough decisions sometimes. How anyone can put these two in the same category as a despot who gassed, tortured and murdered for three decades is beyond me!!

[Calculus]

I must admit I really find all this 'war criminal' b###s##t offensive in the extreme. Facts are that lots of people supported this war at the time. Saddam had used WMD against his own people (on more than one occasion) and it seemed reasonable at that time to assume that he still had them. He had started a war with Iran (and later Kuwait) that led to the deaths of 1 million people. He ruled his population by fear and intimidation and was all set to hand the baton down to his (even more psychotic) sons. No British soldier died in vain in Iraq and to suggest otherwise is an insult to their memories. What would have happened had Blair/Bush not intervened can only be a matter of speculation now but Saddam was not about to stop killing that's for sure!! I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush but leaders have to make tough decisions sometimes. How anyone can put these two in the same category as a despot who gassed, tortured and murdered for three decades is beyond me!!

 

Well said, and by way of a reminder:

 

2003 - Invasion of Iraq

2005 - Blair wins his third General Election

[kevinmabbuttshair]

I must admit I really find all this 'war criminal' b###s##t offensive in the extreme. Facts are that lots of people supported this war at the time. Saddam had used WMD against his own people (on more than one occasion) and it seemed reasonable at that time to assume that he still had them. He had started a war with Iran (and later Kuwait) that led to the deaths of 1 million people. He ruled his population by fear and intimidation and was all set to hand the baton down to his (even more psychotic) sons. No British soldier died in vain in Iraq and to suggest otherwise is an insult to their memories. What would have happened had Blair/Bush not intervened can only be a matter of speculation now but Saddam was not about to stop killing that's for sure!! I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush but leaders have to make tough decisions sometimes. How anyone can put these two in the same category as a despot who gassed, tortured and murdered for three decades is beyond me!!

Time to declare war on north Korea and then China.

Tough decisions need to be made

[Welcome To The Jungle]

While I would agree with your post - especially the last sentence - and I always opposed the war, indeed I went in the huge million-person march that was totally ignored by politicians from all sides of the HoC when they voted to support "intervention" I do think hundreds of thousands would've died in Iraq without Blair and Dubya's help.

Saddam had already killed about 100,000 Shia and similar numbers of Kurds after the first Gulf War - and that's before we get into the disappeared political prisoners. And let's not forget that 1.25m died in the Iran-Iraq War, sparked by Saddam's invasion of "Arab" parts of Iran. The country was a tinderbox of religious and ethnic tensions that would've gone off at some time very soon. The allies actually killed very few Iraqis - other Iraqis are doing all that.

Knowing this, of course, is an even bigger reason for us to have kept the f- away from the area.

The whole decision making progress should be examined in the open.

 

How many would have died if the 'west' had stayed out of that war? It may not have started, and even if it did would never have lasted as long and the weapons would be less sophisticated, therefore less deaths. 

 

If the above were true then Iraq would never have needed to invade Kuwait to pay for the war, and thus the two Gulf wars never happen, nor the Islamic terror attacks of the last decade. 

 

I appreciate I'm missing many factors and simplifying it a lot but ultimately in Iraq and Afghanistan (where we armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets) we have learnt not to arm the lesser of two evils. For that reason I'm very concerned about arming the Syrian rebels, who I believe may even be worse than Assad. Send aid to the refugees, set up field hospitals or send diplomats, just lets leave the guns at home shall we. 

[Red-Robbo]

How many would have died if the 'west' had stayed out of that war? It may not have started, and even if it did would never have lasted as long and the weapons would be less sophisticated, therefore less deaths. 

 

If the above were true then Iraq would never have needed to invade Kuwait to pay for the war, and thus the two Gulf wars never happen, nor the Islamic terror attacks of the last decade. 

 

I appreciate I'm missing many factors and simplifying it a lot but ultimately in Iraq and Afghanistan (where we armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets) we have learnt not to arm the lesser of two evils. For that reason I'm very concerned about arming the Syrian rebels, who I believe may even be worse than Assad. Send aid to the refugees, set up field hospitals or send diplomats, just lets leave the guns at home shall we. 

 

I'm not quite sure I follow you. The West did "stay out" of that war. Saddam's weaponry was largely Soviet (and the Iranians - ironically - British, whence the Chieftan proved it was an excellent main battle tank). I appreciate that the Americans did supply satellite intelligence to the Iraqis during the war, but it was a bit more nuanced than to say "we armed Saddam".

 

I'm pretty much in favour of staying out of all wars and warzones. It hasn't done the Swiss any harm.

[BS34Red]

Blair runied this country.

[And Its Smith]

Blair runied this country.

Deep

[screech]

I must admit I really find all this 'war criminal' b###s##t offensive in the extreme. Facts are that lots of people supported this war at the time. Saddam had used WMD against his own people (on more than one occasion) and it seemed reasonable at that time to assume that he still had them. He had started a war with Iran (and later Kuwait) that led to the deaths of 1 million people. He ruled his population by fear and intimidation and was all set to hand the baton down to his (even more psychotic) sons. No British soldier died in vain in Iraq and to suggest otherwise is an insult to their memories. What would have happened had Blair/Bush not intervened can only be a matter of speculation now but Saddam was not about to stop killing that's for sure!! I'm no fan of either Blair or Bush but leaders have to make tough decisions sometimes. How anyone can put these two in the same category as a despot who gassed, tortured and murdered for three decades is beyond me!!

 

Why is it our business to decide who is a good leader and who is a bad one?

How many African wars would we need to be in to root out your description of good leader bad leader. Are we also going after China next, Pakistan?

 

Every British soldier died in vain, no WMD found which was the reason given for having the war. The fact the cowards are drip feeding a gist of what was said between Bush and Blair speaks volumes of how those two viewed Iraq. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, it would all be out in the open and we would see for ourselves the case for invading. Why would that be a bad thing?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

While I would agree with your post - especially the last sentence - and I always opposed the war, indeed I went in the huge million-person march that was totally ignored by politicians from all sides of the HoC when they voted to support "intervention" I do think hundreds of thousands would've died in Iraq without Blair and Dubya's help.

Saddam had already killed about 100,000 Shia and similar numbers of Kurds after the first Gulf War - and that's before we get into the disappeared political prisoners. And let's not forget that 1.25m died in the Iran-Iraq War, sparked by Saddam's invasion of "Arab" parts of Iran. The country was a tinderbox of religious and ethnic tensions that would've gone off at some time very soon. The allies actually killed very few Iraqis - other Iraqis are doing all that.

Knowing this, of course, is an even bigger reason for us to have kept the f- away from the area.

The whole decision making progress should be examined in the open.

 

Bang on Robbo. Saddam was a despot of the highest order, he had to be stopped

 

There a handful of people making the big decisions who need to answer a lot of questions, but I can't imagine that life for the people persecuted by Saddam isn't a hell of a lot better now

 

Such is the world we live in

 

I think there might be some sympathy with this view but for this, as has already been pointed out there are many despots in the world and in the main we allow most of them to go about their mass murder unmolested, unless of course they meet 2 very important criteria 1. they have OIL and 2. it's in the interest of the US of A.

[Red-Robbo]

I think there might be some sympathy with this view but for this, as has already been pointed out there are many despots in the world and in the main we allow most of them to go about their mass murder unmolested, unless of course they meet 2 very important criteria 1. they have OIL and 2. it's in the interest of the US of A.

No doubt about it, we were conned into that war by the US.

If Blair had admitted that, he'd start to look like an honest - albeit criminally reckless and naive - person.

[Portland Bill]

Blair runied this country.

No,Thatcher ruined this country,Blair carried on some of her work.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

No,Thatcher ruined this country,Blair carried on some of her work.

 

Bill whether you like it or not history is judging and always will judge Blair far worse than Thatcher, because he and his cronies abandoned the core labour vote, the working man and now even his friends are turning on him.

 

How a so called democracy can allow that little shit to decide what evidence he does or doesn't submit to an official enquiry beggars belief and without doubt whatever the outcome of that enquiry it will be looked upon by the electorate as yet another white wash in an ever growing series of white washes.

[Monkeh]

Bill whether you like it or not history is judging and always will judge Blair far worse than Thatcher, because he and his cronies abandoned the core labour vote, the working man and now even his friends are turning on him.

 

How a so called democracy can allow that little shit to decide what evidence he does or doesn't submit to an official enquiry beggars belief and without doubt whatever the outcome of that enquiry it will be looked upon by the electorate as yet another white wash in an ever growing series of white washes.

because if it did show what went on, the whole house of cards would collapse, remeber the tories didn't stand in the way of the war they supported it,

Labour need to reconnect with the working man,

[Esmond Million's Bung]

because if it did show what went on, the whole house of cards would collapse, remeber the tories didn't stand in the way of the war they supported it,

Labour need to reconnect with the working man,

 

Yes they did but based on what?, doctored/sexed up evidence (if you could even call it evidence).

 

Labour will never again reconnect with the working man, they are just a centre left wing of the tories these days, but an electable leader would certainly help.

[Monkeh]

Yes they did but based on what?, doctored/sexed up evidence (if you could even call it evidence).

 

Labour will never again reconnect with the working man, they are just a centre left wing of the tories these days, but an electable leader would certainly help.

probbily the same basis labour and blair jumped in bed with bush, the yanks lied to us and they don't want us plebs finding out as it will sour the "special relasionship" we so say have with the good ol' us of a,

 

much like the political elete it absolutly stinks,

[chipdawg]

Bill whether you like it or not history is judging and always will judge Blair far worse than Thatcher, because he and his cronies abandoned the core labour vote, the working man and now even his friends are turning on him.

How a so called democracy can allow that little shit to decide what evidence he does or doesn't submit to an official enquiry beggars belief and without doubt whatever the outcome of that enquiry it will be looked upon by the electorate as yet another white wash in an ever growing series of white washes.

I don't think the recent ruling/judgement/ edict effects what is shown to the enquiry, just what is subsequently released to the public. Still not right, but there is a difference

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I don't think the recent ruling/judgement/ edict effects what is shown to the enquiry, just what is subsequently released to the public. Still not right, but there is a difference

 

I agree my point is Blair should not be within in million miles of any negotiation into what the public is allowed to see or not, he is no longer the prime minister thank ****, although I think he still thinks he is prime minister.

[Monkeh]

I agree my point is Blair should not be within in million miles of any negotiation into what the public is allowed to see or not, he is no longer the prime minister thank ****, although I think he still thinks he is prime minister.

its like asking a murderer to decide the length of his own sentance

[chipdawg]

I agree my point is Blair should not be within in million miles of any negotiation into what the public is allowed to see or not, he is no longer the prime minister thank ****, although I think he still thinks he is prime minister.

I agree; it should be for the enquiry itself and if matters of national security, etc. the Attorney General to decide who sees what

[Portland Bill]

Bill whether you like it or not history is judging and always will judge Blair far worse than Thatcher, because he and his cronies abandoned the core labour vote, the working man and now even his friends are turning on him.

How a so called democracy can allow that little shit to decide what evidence he does or doesn't submit to an official enquiry beggars belief and without doubt whatever the outcome of that enquiry it will be looked upon by the electorate as yet another white wash in an ever growing series of white washes.

I've no time for Blair, but to say he was worse than Thatcher is imo plain wrong.

But we have had that debate a few times already

[I have no clue]

I think Libya was an example of where international intervention is somewhat viable, even if there is criticism afterwards towards there not being "a long term plan" like in Afghanistan, the main criticism that campaign got. There is no way you can justify bombing another country in these terms, we can only wonder if a crisis could have been avoided in Syria now if we would have taken similar action right away. Can't help but think the level of destruction would have been reduced.

[Monkeh]

I think Libya was an example of where international intervention is somewhat viable, even if there is criticism afterwards towards there not being "a long term plan" like in Afghanistan, the main criticism that campaign got. There is no way you can justify bombing another country in these terms, we can only wonder if a crisis could have been avoided in Syria now if we would have taken similar action right away. Can't help but think the level of destruction would have been reduced.

Libya if a far worse country now then it was before the west got involved, we should stop messing with the middle east, full stop

[I have no clue]

Libya if a far worse country now then it was before the west got involved, we should stop messing with the middle east, full stop

That is absolutely correct, having no established political parties to take over due to being under a dictatorship for four decades, they were unable to create stability. That and the civil war consisting of disjointed local militias, all possibly viewing their own contribution as more important than the next militia. The US may have been able to help clear up weaponry left over but that would have been deemed too imperialist like in Iraq. I'm playing devils advocate, but with our footing in international relations, I can't help but think that we should feel responsibility for the liberties of all countries, Muslim or not. I'm not sure if you cna judge Assad in the same light as Gaddafi, but I think Libyans were offered better terms than the close to a million dead Syrians.

[Monkeh]

That is absolutely correct, having no established political parties to take over due to being under a dictatorship for four decades, they were unable to create stability. That and the civil war consisting of disjointed local militias, all possibly viewing their own contribution as more important than the next militia. The US may have been able to help clear up weaponry left over but that would have been deemed too imperialist like in Iraq. I'm playing devils advocate, but with our footing in international relations, I can't help but think that we should feel responsibility for the liberties of all countries, Muslim or not. I'm not sure if you cna judge Assad in the same light as Gaddafi, but I think Libyans were offered better terms than the close to a million dead Syrians.

makes more sense to me I can see what you are getting at,

The problem is the west sees captalisum and demorcacy as the be all and end all of everything we (the west) and the USA fail to take historic grudges and history into account when "aiding" these country they forget that alot of these middle eastern country are tribal by nature and these tribes just don't get along,,

Take Somlia for example that country has suffered badly because of US meddling in internal affairs and siding with one power over a civil war,

we shouldn't get involved

[TRL]

I think Libya was an example of where international intervention is somewhat viable, even if there is criticism afterwards towards there not being "a long term plan" like in Afghanistan, the main criticism that campaign got. There is no way you can justify bombing another country in these terms, we can only wonder if a crisis could have been avoided in Syria now if we would have taken similar action right away. Can't help but think the level of destruction would have been reduced.

I think your user name is apt here. Libya was the richest and a pretty well run country before we decimated it. Doing pretty big things such as it water dispersal project which was huge.

Now it is a absolute mess because of foreign policy towards a country which was fairly well run, even if other countries didn't like the way it was being run.