Is Toady Blair the ANTI CHRIST?

Originally posted by Sparks
No. I dismissed it as incorrect. Because Wolfowitz stated, in a public interview, that the decision to invade Iraq was taken on 9/13/01.

oh my sleepy head...
Saddam was in power acting the maniac for over thirty years,instead of governing in the way the President of France was...
Theres no way, that if he had run his country like France was run, that the U.S would have had any invasion there.
It just wouldn't have been possible.
No justification could have existed or been invented.

Surely it's valid to lay some blame for the situation at Saddams head when if he had acted reasonably, there would have been no attention from the U.S

As I said, that's incorrect.

For you to state that that could be incorrect, you would have to show me that, Bush could have got support domestically for an invasion of Iraq if President Saddam had been running his country in a reasonable fashion such as the French president does his.
Saddam was ultimately the author of his own destiny there and must share some of the blame for his ultimate downfall.
He could have avoided that.
Regarding direct democracy again, when you say:

Ah, that implies the Ahern definition of "binding referendum" though, doesn't it?

I'd like to point out , that I believe fundamentally in peoples rights to change their mind on any issue, whether they asked for something in a referendum or not.
To my mind theres an inherent lack of democracy in denying that right.
mm

Sparks

No justification could have existed or been invented.

That's a bit naieve, isn't it? After all, a non-existant justification was invented. The point is that the decision to invade was made just under two years ago. The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

Bush could have got support domestically for an invasion of Iraq

Why would he need such support? For a start, he didn't have it (there were more people protesting inside the US than outside it). Add to that the kneejerking from 9/11 and he could have ordered an invasion of Sweden...

Saddam was ultimately the author of his own destiny there and must share some of the blame for his ultimate downfall.
He could have avoided that.

That does presuppose that the US only goes after "bad" rulers. Which, I suppose is true - if you let the US decide who's a "bad" ruler and who isn't...
It's just that they've got awful judgement in such things.

I'd like to point out , that I believe fundamentally in peoples rights to change their mind on any issue, whether they asked for something in a referendum or not.
To my mind theres an inherent lack of democracy in denying that right.

True enough. But we tend to have a binding referendum to settle such issues, at least for a few years. And remember that 4% of the electorate is actually rather a lot of people.

Sparks

Originally posted by Xhen
According to research done by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) the largest suppliers of arms to Iraq from 1973 - 1990 (the start of the first Gulf War) were Russia (57%), France (13%), and China (13%). American arms sales to Iraq during that same period were 1% - approximately the same percentage as Denmark.

Xhen, you forgot one small tiny detail.
The US may not have sold Iraq many arms - but they did give them a lot of cash.
Remember that sit-down that Rumsfeld had with Saddam after Halajba? Rumsfeld didn't bring a shipping crate full of nerve gas as a present - he gave him $300 million to buy more arms with.

The US and Iraq have never had a particularly close economic or military relationship - certainly nothing like Saddam had with the old Soviet Union or France.

Crap. No particularly close relationship? The CIA hired and trained Saddam in '59 to assassinate the then-prime-minister of Iraq. When he failed (and managed to shoot himself in the process), they smuggled him out of Iraq and hept him in a series of safe houses for nearly three years until the assassination was successfully carried out by another assassin, and then they smuggled him back into Iraq.

There was a brief period in the early '80's when military intelligence was provided to Iraq during its war with Iran because the Ayatollah Khomeini was considered to be a bigger threat to the region. Civilian helicopters were sold to Iraq during that time but there were no major arms sales made by the US to Iraq. You only have to look at the propenderance of Russian and French weapons and hardware used by Iraq during the Iranian war and the two Gulf wars to know who Saddam's primary arms suppliers were. The United States doesn't build T-72 tanks, AK-47s, or Mirage jets.

"Here's the latest intel Saddam, and whoops! Would you look at that, I guess the cleaning lady left that cheque for $300 million in there along with a catalog from Dassault! Must get her to stop doing that!"
:rolleyes:

The myth that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax.

"No, Mr. President, I give you my word, we won't try to produce 80,000 litres of anthrax. We just want to learn how not to get anthrax from all these damn Iranians..."

Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides.

Not to ridicule you further Xhen, but Sarin isn't DDT or mustard gas. It's a damn sight harder to make (and harder still to make without killing yourself and everyone in the building).

European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.

And they paid in rubles, did they?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
That's a bit naieve, isn't it? After all, a non-existant justification was invented. The point is that the decision to invade was made just under two years ago. The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

It's not naive at all, to suggest that, a reason could not be found, to invade Iraq if it's leader for the past thirty years ran the country like the French do theirs.

he could have ordered an invasion of Sweden...

Come now, Sparks,he could not have ordered an invasion of Sweden, and well you know it.
Nor could he have ordered an invasion of Iraq, if Saddam had conducted his countries affairs more like france over the years,thats my point.
Saddam certainly has to share some of the blame for what happened.

And remember that 4% of the electorate is actually rather a lot of people.

Actually, I'm pretty sure, if you stood outside Mass in every Parish in the land, you'd find your 4% easily and often enough, a tactic, that wouldn't be foreign to some of our home grown right of centre fundamentalists.
mm

Sparks

Saddam certainly has to share some of the blame for what happened.

See, I'm not trying to say he isn't/wasn't worthy of spending the rest of his life making small rocks in siberia - but the thing is that so are a lot of other leaders world-wide. Iraq, however, is unique in that it had very little in the way of defence thanks to 12 years of sanctions and arms inspectors, a large amount of oil, a policy of using euros for a currency standard instead of the dollar, and a history of a fight with Jr's daddy.
So frankly, there wasn't anything that he could have done to prevent the invasion. Even if he'd had a brain transplant with Ghandi, the US was going to invade. As I said,
The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

Come now, Sparks,he could not have ordered an invasion of Sweden, and well you know it.

Yeah. I also knew he could never disappear US citizens, introduce the patriot act, start a war of aggression, ignore the largest civil protests since the Vietnam war, run roughshod over the UN, ignored the Geneva Convention completely, killed 13-14,000 innocent civilians, invaded afghanistan and the middle east, or restart the nuclear arms race.
Sadly, when it comes to underestimating the level of insanity he's capable of achieving, I'm woefully ept

Actually, I'm pretty sure, if you stood outside Mass in every Parish in the land, you'd find your 4% easily and often enough, a tactic, that wouldn't be foreign to some of our home grown right of centre fundamentalists.

Which is sort of why the word "binding" gets used a lot, I guess.
And recall, the right-wing crowd you're talking about would want consitutional change to prevent divorce or ban abortion or declare the roman catholic equivalent to sharia law or whatever - and constitutional referenda are different animals to non-constitutional referenda. This can be done in a manner that prevents abuse without limiting rights, in other words.
And you have yet to prove that this silent majority is a threat to civil rights, by the way...

Originally posted by Sparks
See, I'm not trying to say he isn't/wasn't worthy of spending the rest of his life making small rocks in siberia - but the thing is that so are a lot of other leaders world-wide. Iraq, however, is unique in that it had very little in the way of defence thanks to 12 years of sanctions and arms inspectors, a large amount of oil, a policy of using euros for a currency standard instead of the dollar, and a history of a fight with Jr's daddy.
So frankly, there wasn't anything that he could have done to prevent the invasion. Even if he'd had a brain transplant with Ghandi, the US was going to invade. As I said,
The diplomacy, UNSC resolution 1441, the protests over UNMOVIC, all of it, was simply put, a sham.
And that's a scary precedent.

My point was again that Saddam chose his path, the something he could have done to prevent the invasion, would have been to conduct his countries affairs more like the French do.
The French in running their country in the way that they do,with interests often conflicting with those of the U.S would have been a good example for Saddam.
He had thirty years to follow it and never did.

Yeah. I also knew he could never disappear US citizens, introduce the patriot act, start a war of aggression, ignore the largest civil protests since the Vietnam war, run roughshod over the UN, ignored the Geneva Convention completely, killed 13-14,000 innocent civilians, invaded afghanistan and the middle east, or restart the nuclear arms race.

Stating all that is still very far from, declaring war on sweden or France for that matter,I think we know such a notion belongs in fiction.

And you have yet to prove that this silent majority is a threat to civil rights, by the way...

what silent majority is that??
I don't have a problem with Referenda, in fact I laud them as you know, and peoples right to change their mind.
I'd just suspect, my shoe leather would be worn out going to the polls, with the zealousness of those that would get their signatures at the chapel gates.
mm

Sparks

My point was again that Saddam chose his path, the something he could have done to prevent the invasion, would have been to conduct his countries affairs more like the French do.
The French in running their country in the way that they do,with interests often conflicting with those of the U.S would have been a good example for Saddam.
He had thirty years to follow it and never did.

For the third time, that's not only naieve, it's wrong.

Stating all that is still very far from, declaring war on sweden or France for that matter,I think we know such a notion belongs in fiction.

Except that I've seen americans being polled on the streets of new york as to whether or not they ought to sanction strikes on sweden. And many of them agreed with the idea in principle and a few were actually ardent that it was about time it happened... :rolleyes:

what silent majority is that??

The ones you mentioned, signing petitions outside churches...

I don't have a problem with Referenda, in fact I laud them as you know, and peoples right to change their mind.
I'd just suspect, my shoe leather would be worn out going to the polls, with the zealousness of those that would get their signatures at the chapel gates.

You're assuming then, that people just sign anything if you catch them outside church?
Last time I checked, trying to get people to sign a petition for legalised abortion outside church after mass was considered a difficult task...
The point is, that people won't sign a petition for something they don't support or want themselves.

Originally posted by Sparks
For the third time, that's not only naieve, it's wrong.

Hang on now sparks,how is it wrong?? Saddam did choose to run his country like a tyrant.
If he ran it like France is run, there would have been no grounds for an invasion, invented or not-thats logic.

Except that I've seen americans being polled on the streets of new york as to whether or not they ought to sanction strikes on sweden. And many of them agreed with the idea in principle and a few were actually ardent that it was about time it happened...

You know don't you, that you are not showing me there that, Bush would get support for an invasion of Sweden, by telling me that.
I could go up the road from here and get equally quirky opinions about anything.
What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??

You're assuming then, that people just sign anything if you catch them outside church?
Last time I checked, trying to get people to sign a petition for legalised abortion outside church after mass was considered a difficult task...
The point is, that people won't sign a petition for something they don't support or want themselves.

errr sparks, I was assuming that the petitions outside the Chapels would be to get referenda on issues like banning travel for abortion, banning condoms,alcohol sales to the under 25's,Divorce etc, etc etc...
I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything , just 'cause they've been caught on the hop, least of all legalised abortion:eek:
mm

Sparks

Hang on now sparks,how is it wrong?? Saddam did choose to run his country like a tyrant.
If he ran it like France is run, there would have been no grounds for an invasion, invented or not-thats logic.

It's wrong because the invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the way he ran Iraq.

What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??

Frankly? The poor educational standards in the states.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything

Then where's the problem?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by Sparks
It's wrong because the invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the way he ran Iraq.

It's not wrong, because, the invasion wouldn't be possible, if Saddam ran the affairs of his country, in the same way French Presidents ran theirs.
He had the ultimate control of his own and his countries destiny.

What do you think a referendum in the states on the issue of invading Sweden would show??
Frankly? The poor educational standards in the states.

Nice evasion of the purpose of my question there, you were suggesting that, the people of the U.S would support an invasion of Sweden, you might get ten or 15% to vote for that but I doubt it....
You'd get a similar number voting for Lord Sutch at some by-elections in the UK.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything

Then where's the problem?

Now you are resorting to misquoting me, heres the full sentence.

I'd never assume that mass goers would sign anything , just 'cause they've been caught on the hop, least of all legalised abortion

In other words my reply, directly after , the quote i took from you, when read as the full sentence above (and not the snipped version you've quoted) asserts that people outside Catholic chapels would sign petitions for things that they would agree with.
mm

Sparks

It's not wrong, because, the invasion wouldn't be possible, if Saddam ran the affairs of his country, in the same way French Presidents ran theirs.
He had the ultimate control of his own and his countries destiny.

<sigh>
The decision to invade was taken on the 13th of september, 2001, according to wolfowitz. It had nothing to do with how he ran Iraq's domestic affairs. Nothing.

You'd get a similar number voting for Lord Sutch at some by-elections in the UK.

Yes, but for a different reason. Sutch was pretty much the UK equivalent to "none of the above". Voting for him has to be counted as a form of protest more than anything else.

In other words my reply, directly after , the quote i took from you, when read as the full sentence above (and not the snipped version you've quoted) asserts that people outside Catholic chapels would sign petitions for things that they would agree with.

In which case, you'd have no real right to complain either, since it'd be reflecting the will of the majority....

Originally posted by Sparks
<sigh>
The decision to invade was taken on the 13th of september, 2001, according to wolfowitz. It had nothing to do with how he ran Iraq's domestic affairs. Nothing.

you are again skipping over my assertion that, if Saddam ran his country like the French President runs his,an invasion of Iraq by the U.S, the U.K or anybody, could not have been contimplated.
He had the power to run his countries affairs in such a manner,yet didn't.
Instead he ran it like an egotistical, tyrannical maniac, making, an invasion possible.
If he had ran it like France,there would be no invasion.
thats where he must take some blame for his own downfall.
I see now you are adding the word Domestic above...
I didn't use, the word domestic,I am referring to the way he used all of his presidential powers vis a vis the way French Presidents have used theirs.

Yes, but for a different reason. Sutch was pretty much the UK equivalent to "none of the above". Voting for him has to be counted as a form of protest more than anything else.

As would be a small percentage of people who might vote in a U.S referendum for an invasion of Sweden.
An invasion idea that you brought, up in the first place and which I say again is fiction and nothing more than that.

In which case, you'd have no real right to complain either, since it'd be reflecting the will of the majority....

Errr sparks I was complaining that, there would be a possibility, that we would be wearing our shoes out going to multiple referenda, not about the results of any referenda.
It wouldn't be difficult to get regular religous oriented referenda, if you only needed 4% of the electorate, if you were putting you case outside every Catholic chapel in the land on a Saturday and a Sunday.
mm

Sparks

Instead he ran it like an egotistical, tyrannical maniac, making, an invasion possible.

Man, I'd understand your point if Iraq was invaded to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
But it wasn't.
So your point is invald.

I see now you are adding the word Domestic above...
I didn't use, the word domestic,I am referring to the way he used all of his presidential powers vis a vis the way French Presidents have used theirs.

Now you're going to have to be more specific.

As would be a small percentage of people who might vote in a U.S referendum for an invasion of Sweden.

Now that would be a rather unique form of protest, wouldn't it?
Remember, such a referendum would be a yes/no affair, not a multiple choice affair like an election.
There's no room for a protest in other words.

Errr sparks I was complaining that, there would be a possibility, that we would be wearing our shoes out going to multiple referenda, not about the results of any referenda.
It wouldn't be difficult to get regular religous oriented referenda, if you only needed 4% of the electorate, if you were putting you case outside every Catholic chapel in the land on a Saturday and a Sunday.

So your argument is that we should leave the control of the country in the hands of a minority because walking to the polls on a weekend is too much of a chore?
Bonkey, how often are polls held in switzerland?

Originally posted by Sparks
Man, I'd understand your point if Iraq was invaded to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
But it wasn't.
So your point is invald.

My point, is, If saddam ran his country , like French Presidents do theirs, a U.S or U.K invasion would not have been conceived at all.
He had it within his authority to , run his country in that way, but didn't, so must have some blame for the consequenses of that.
Thats a Valid point, and not the point you think I am making.
Are we clear there now?

Remember, such a referendum would be a yes/no affair, not a multiple choice affair like an election.
There's no room for a protest in other words.

But voting yes to an invasion is a protest.

So your argument is that we should leave the control of the country in the hands of a minority because walking to the polls on a weekend is too much of a chore?

If it's too often,yes, I'd rather the cost of such regular polls, wanted by the few (as many of them would be ) would be going on more worthwhile things like nurses pay perhaps.
Remember, I'm saying I would think, that polls would become ten a penny here, untill certain conservative agenda's wasted a lot of money, plying there case many times.
mm
p.s sparks could we take the direct democracy part of this discussion to a separate thread...,

Sparks

My point, is, If saddam ran his country , like French Presidents do theirs, a U.S or U.K invasion would not have been conceived at all.
He had it within his authority to , run his country in that way, but didn't, so must have some blame for the consequenses of that.
Thats a Valid point, and not the point you think I am making.
Are we clear there now?

I was never unclear as to your point Man, I'm just saying that it's wrong. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or legal reasons. It took place to further the self-interest of the US. The only way to have prevented it, ironically, would have been to have actually had WMDs and the willingness to use them in self-defence.

If it's too often,yes, I'd rather the cost of such regular polls, wanted by the few (as many of them would be ) would be going on more worthwhile things like nurses pay perhaps.

Which costs more, a protest (and ancillary garda pay and so on) or a referendum?

Originally posted by Sparks
I was never unclear as to your point Man, I'm just saying that it's wrong. The invasion did not take place for humanitarian or legal reasons. It took place to further the self-interest of the US. The only way to have prevented it, ironically, would have been to have actually had WMDs and the willingness to use them in self-defence.

Well you seem very unclear about what I am saying, so I will try again,I am not arguing about the why's and wherefores of the invasion itself, I'm simply stating that if Saddam had followed the course of running his country in similar fashion to the way the French run theirs, there would never have been an invasion of Iraq by the U.S, the U.K or any other western country, it just could not have been conceived.
Saddam has to take some blame for the outcome as it happened.
mm

Sparks

*beats head against wall repeatedly*
The - invasion - had - nothing - to - do - with - saddam.
It - was - to - further - the - self-interest - of - the - US.
Saddam - had - little - to - do - with - it.

gandalf

Well I have to agree with Sparks here that the invasion was caused by an interest in controlling OIL and the regime change arguement was a way to market that goal in nice little feelgood package that makes the Axis of Diesel feel good.

Now what I want to know is what this has to do with the topic of Tony Blair being the anti-Christ. I would have thought the Blairs butchering of a Beetles song in China would have been proof enough of this

Gandalf.

Originally posted by Sparks
*beats head against wall repeatedly*
The - invasion - had - nothing - to - do - with - saddam.
It - was - to - further - the - self-interest - of - the - US.
Saddam - had - little - to - do - with - it.

sparks,
You seem obsessed with preaching to the converted as regards,the Bush administrations interests in Iraq.
In so doing you want to completely ignore the fact that all I am saying is that such an invasion would have been impossible, if Saddam had ran his country in the way that the French presidents did theirs.He therefore must take some blame for what happened.
And to drag this back on topic, since, the whole subject thread regarding Blair being the "Anti-Christ" hinges on events soley around the Iraq invasion, we wouldn't be having this discussion either if Saddam had ran his country like the French President.
mm

Paddy20

So, has the *Sparks - V - Man Show* run its natural course ?.. if so can we now get back to normal programming i.e. Is Toady Blair the ANTI CHRIST?.. Why not a Poll please.

Paddy20;)

Sparks

So, has the *Sparks - V - Man Show* run its natural course ?

Well, I've given up. Shy of physically strapping him to a chair, taping his eyes open and forcing him to watch a history lesson, I can't seem to get him to realise that none of the leaders involved gave a fig about Saddam's morals. Hell, these people could go to an Edie Amin dinner party and compliment the chef if they thought it would further their self-interests.

But is Blair the actual anti=christ? Well, firstly, I'm not christian, I'm a secular humanist. So the whole anti-christ notion is to me somewhat silly. Secondly, I'm not going to volunteer to check blair for numerical birthmarks, but I'm sure we'd have seen something about it if there was one
So no, he's not the anti-christ. He's just another human without ethics or morals.

Originally posted by Sparks
Hell, these people could go to an Edie Amin dinner party and compliment the chef if they thought it would further their self-interests.

If you mean Blair there, I'll have to disagree with you.
And as for:

He's just another human without ethics or morals.

It's so easy to make a statement like that in a place like this isn't it,Go to the man himself and put that to him, at least then he would have a right of reply.
mm

Sparks

It's so easy to make a statement like that in a place like this isn't it,Go to the man himself and put that to him, at least then he would have a right of reply.

Happily. How do you propose to get me past his security detail?

You could try his constituency offices:
Myrobella House, Trimdon Colliery, County Durham.
Telephone: 020 7219 5676 (House of Commons) (01429) 882202 (Constituency)
Fax: (01429) 880950

Write to them with your accusations as to his ethics and morals and I'm sure you will get a suitable reply.
mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
You could try his constituency offices:
Myrobella House, Trimdon Colliery, County Durham.
Telephone: 020 7219 5676 (House of Commons) (01429) 882202 (Constituency)
Fax: (01429) 880950

Write to them with your accusations as to his ethics and morals and I'm sure you will get a suitable reply.
mm

Somehow I doubt it man...

colster

Originally posted by Sparks
*beats head against wall repeatedly*
The - invasion - had - nothing - to - do - with - saddam.
It - was - to - further - the - self-interest - of - the - US.
Saddam - had - little - to - do - with - it.

Of course it had something to do with Saddam.
Do you honestly believe that if Iraq was not lead by Saddam that this war would actually have happened?
Of course it wouldn't.
But you can also say that this war would also not have happened if Iraq had no oil.

The war was about oil being in the hands of the wrong person and what that person could use that oil for.

Sparks

Do you honestly believe that if Iraq was not lead by Saddam that this war would actually have happened?
Of course it wouldn't.

It would depend on what that person did I guess...

The war was about oil being in the hands of the wrong person and what that person could use that oil for.

Yes, but wrong in this case is defined as "not who the US administration wanted" ...

colster

Originally posted by Sparks
It would depend on what that person did I guess...


Yes, but wrong in this case is defined as "not who the US administration wanted" ...

Exactly, The US administration don't want Saddam because he doesn't support them, opposes the Israelis and supports (allegedly) the Palestinian suicide bombers.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly due to a future energy crisis. Oil will be a scarcer and more valuable resource so those who control it will have a huge influence on the world.

The US don't mind not controlling oil but are more concerned that those who do are not aggressively anti-American or anti-Israeli.