Jail Bush and Blair

Sand

Just because a country is a dictatorship does not give other countries the right to start a war against it and kill alot of their civilians. Does anyone honestly believe they went to war to fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people?

Does anyone believe the Allies or the Soviets went to war to save the Jews? Or to defend Polish sovereignty? Reprehensible regimes sometimes are overthrown by illegal force. Dont get too picky over the means.

Kevster

Truthrevolution, the stakes might be higher but the USA and UK have lost the respect of the world and their could be a World War (against them) if they invaded Iran. No-one wants it to happen, and it won't because the US and UK have been severely weakened in the past decade.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What about (.....)you want isn't it.

Entirely different circumstances, as you're no doubt aware. Churchill however, could be done for his involvement in gassing the Iraqis.

Trotter wrote:

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

He had no control over that area, a consequence of the first gulf war.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

So, basically, it is trying to have it both ways.

No it's not. If anyone is guilty of having it both ways it would be you considering how you seemingly flip-flop on the use of terrorism and violence depending on who is doing it.

nacho libre

Sand wrote: »

Does anyone believe the Allies or the Soviets went to war to save the Jews? Or to defend Polish sovereignty? Reprehensible regimes sometimes are overthrown by illegal force. Dont get too picky over the means.

Call me naive but yes i believe some of the allies did so for humantarian reasons with national interests for once not being the main reason. However, you're right; wars are rarely fought with humanitarian concerns being the primary motivation. Though, as we all know citizens are usually led to believe they are fought for noble reasons. If that doesn't work then a climate of fear is created convincing people there is no alternative to war. you know like bogus 45 minute claims.

nacho libre

Kevster wrote: »

Truthrevolution, the stakes might be higher but the USA and UK have lost the respect of the world and their could be a World War (against them) if they invaded Iran. No-one wants it to happen, and it won't because the US and UK have been severely weakened in the past decade.

Yes, i think conventional war with Iran would be a last resort given how stretched the American military is right now and the political fallout from the Iraq war. However, If America fears Israel are going to hit Iran, they might then deliver targeted strikes on Iran because they may see it as the least worst option.

I think what we are seeing in Iran now is what the CIA has done in various countries in the past - manafacturing dissent and funding the opposition to destabilise the regime, which they hope, combined with the Iranian economy being crippled, will lead to the current regime being eventually toppled. I know, i know this is a daft conspiracy. It's not as if the CIA in their own declassified documents have ever admitted to doing such things in other countries.

Flamed Diving

They should hang Napoleons bones!

Trotter

Nodin wrote: »

He had no control over that area, a consequence of the first gulf war.

The Kurdish villagers were gassed in 1988.

Halabja Gas Attack

The first gulf war started in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Nodin

Trotter wrote: »

The Kurdish villagers were gassed in 1988.

Halabja Gas Attack

The first gulf war started in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

I'm fully aware of the timeline. You stated, in response to the OP re Bush and Blair

If they hadn't gone into Iraq, would Saddam now be gassing more innocent Kurds?

He could not have, as I pointed out earlier, as he had been prevented from doing so.

FlutterinBantam

Sand wrote: »

Isnt that essentially trying to have it both ways?

You didnt like Saddam, he was a corrupt and evil dictator - but removing him by force was a war crime?

You see that's the way a lot of the lads in here operate Sand.

Hindsight merchants. If someone went in and overthrew Mugabe the bleedin' heart idealists who abound here would be waving their flags and painting their kerbs.

Who knows what would have happened in Iraq if that crackpot was left in charge, the same is building up in Iran.

However the bleeding heart idealists and champions of fly blown and dusty windcracked causes will always jump in from their safe and secure locations and using the benefit of hindsight seek to undermine those who try to do some good.

They are quite prolific here Sand, always ready to critisise and never look at the big picture.


I know you know that by the way;)

deadhead13

I watched as much of Blair's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry as I could stomach. He implied there was a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 -

"...up to September 11 we thought he was a risk but we thought it was worth containing it. Crucially, after September 11 the calculus of risk changed...The point about those acts in New York is that, had they to been able to kill more than 3,000 people, they would have. My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

There was no link. He went on to say -

"The primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that, after September 11, if you were a regime engaged in WMD, you had to be stopped.

There were no WMDs.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You see that's the way a lot of the lads in here operate Sand.

If you're going to criticise posters, at least have the decency to highlight exactly who you're talking about. I do realise your fondness for 'provocative' posts that are thin on facts, but there's no need to be shy here.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Hindsight merchants..

Against the war beforehand, during and after. I'm not seeing hindsight there. If theres somebody specific you have in mind, address them.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who knows what would have happened in Iraq if that crackpot was left in charge, ..

Well, we know for a fact that he had no WMD, no factories to produce them, no Nuclear program, no control over large swathes of Iraq, so its fairly safe to say "Not much".

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

the same is building up in Iran...

A non sequitur.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

However (...........) good. ...

More 'Arr, ye know the way......' nonsense.

FlutterinBantam

I notice you sidestepped the Mugabe reference.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I notice you sidestepped the Mugabe reference.

I notice you've sidestepped the whole of my last post.

FlutterinBantam

Mainly because the opening paragraph contained an unwarranted and extremely personal attack on me.

If you can't debate without involving personal insults, I'm not interested Sir.

Mr.Micro

The US was humiliated after 9/11 so someone had to pay. Saddam a constant thorn was handy and he had got the better of Bush senior in the gulf war, so he was going to be the target. What better way for the US to show it military strength, help Israel and get the oil so that the American way of life could continue. To legitimize the campaign get the poodle Blair on board. So it transpired. All this BS about Saddam being a monster, we all knew that even when he was killing Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war, it did not bother the US or UK then. What are we to believe next that Blair and Bush have a conscience, humanity,morals and scruples? Its been said before, its the control of the oil that was at stake and nothing else.

Slugs

They could even impeach or indigt Nixon, what makes you think they're gonna get on Bush?

Liam Byrne

Trotter wrote: »

The lies about WMD were a disgrace. Saddam's gassing of children was a disgrace. I believe the war in Iraq was wrong, and I believe if Saddam was still alive and in charge, there still would be people dying in horrendous circumstances at his hands. There would still be shocking instability in the region as there is now.

So firstly, you're OK with a war that was "sold" to people by a lie (mind you, I never believed it) ?

And the other comments are ridiculous......it's like going on an indiscriminate shooting rampage in a football stadium which has one trigger-happy, psychotic, criminal sniper and murdering thousands, and then claiming "ah, sure, they'd have died anyways".

The fact is that Bush and Blair are directly responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

If Saddam had done it, then by all means take him out. I'd support that.

But starting a war by lying about it in order to get control over oil is not acceptable.

They should be tried.

Kev_ps3

SLUSK wrote: »

There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.

I agree with you but who is going to punish them? The establishment in the UK and USA are behind them. The people are too brainwashed to do anything.

lugha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But starting a war by lying about it in order to get control over oil is not acceptable.

How about starting a war to remove a potential threat to our way of life?

Liam Byrne

lugha wrote: »

How about starting a war to remove a potential threat to our way of life?

What way of life would that be ? Watching greedy capitalists ruin economies, people in the poverty trap barely retain their dignity, and watch scum and con-men get bailed out using our hard-earned cash while getting millions in bonuses ?

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our way of life. He was a scum and a threat to that of his own countrymen, but that could have been dealt with differently.

thebman

lugha wrote: »

How about starting a war to remove a potential threat to our way of life?

That isn't really cool either TBH.

Potential implies doubt. If they knew there was a threat, the word probably would not have been there.

The lead up to the war on Iraq was like something directly out of 1984 TBH.

Sand

@Nacho Libre

Call me naive...

I cant, Id get banned.

but yes i believe some of the allies did so for humantarian reasons with national interests for once not being the main reason. However, you're right; wars are rarely fought with humanitarian concerns being the primary motivation. Though, as we all know citizens are usually led to believe they are fought for noble reasons. If that doesn't work then a climate of fear is created convincing people there is no alternative to war. you know like bogus 45 minute claims.

The only major nation I can think of that entered the war without being attacked previously or being declared upon was Germany, Italy and Japan plus a variety of minor nations which piled onto the each side either through total subservience to some colonial master or to jump on the bandwagon of the winning team. National interest guided almost every single nation during that war - either entering or staying in the war. The Allies entered the war to guarantee Polish borders, but were happy to sacrifice the Poles as a puppet of the Soviet Union ( A regime almost as horrific as the Nazi's and almost completely unmatched in pure cynicism) by the end of the war because it served their national interests. Polish sovereignty was merely an excuse, a final ultimatumn to Hitler which when tested had to be exercised.

Those demanding that anyone who opposes a reprehensible regime must be a shining beacon of truth and justice is deluding themselves. The Vietnamese overthrew Pol Pots regime, not because communist Vietnam was some new Eden, but because they could and for narrow national interest, and yet the overthrow of Pol Pot was still a progressive step regardless of the need to wage war - with the inevitable suffering - required to do so.

IIRC, back in the day I did argue that it was possible, indeed likely that Saddam was trying to recover his WMD capability, that he had held and used such weapons before. No one knew for sure, but I believed it was likely. He had done it before, he was outmatched in conventional terms - WMD offered a leveller. Moreover I noted that people who disliked Bush or the US in general would never accept US claims regarding Iraq for political reasons. Regardless of it was true or not, it wouldnt be accepted for political reasons. I also noted at least once that I didnt care if Saddam had WMD as his regime deserved to be removed regardless.

Blair is guilty of only one thing - believing that regimes like Saddams were reprehensible and should be removed. Did he lie for the reasons for war? Probably. This is a necessity of democracy, people tend to be self interested - to persuade them to any course of action you need to present that action as serving their own interests: sometimes leaders need to lie to them to persuade them to take a strategic course of action - as far back as Athens, Themistocles persuaded Athenians to fund a navy to fight the Persians on the basis of the threat posed by a minor Greek island! He knew Athenians wouldnt fund a navy to fight the Persians, so he lied. He achieved a strategic end, the formation of a navy, by lying to his fellow citizens. Democracy is merely a mechanism of government, a way to hold leaders accountable (Themistocles, hero of the battle of Salamis and the Persian Wars would later be exiled due to the jealousy of his political rivals). Dont assume its decisions are somehow better or smarter merely because many people came up with them.

Blair is far from perfect, but he did help remove Saddam. Whilst the power play that errupted in Iraq after Saddams removal was and is horrific, Blair is only responsible for his decisions not for those of the various factions in Iraq. Now you can agree with his decision to remove Saddam, warts and all, or you can disagree with it, warts and all. But pretending theres some third way where you disagree with Saddam's regime, but not so much that you want to see it removed is wishful thinking.

Trotter

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So firstly, you're OK with a war that was "sold" to people by a lie (mind you, I never believed it) ?

And the other comments are ridiculous......it's like going on an indiscriminate shooting rampage in a football stadium which has one trigger-happy, psychotic, criminal sniper and murdering thousands, and then claiming "ah, sure, they'd have died anyways".

The fact is that Bush and Blair are directly responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

If Saddam had done it, then by all means take him out. I'd support that.

But starting a war by lying about it in order to get control over oil is not acceptable.

They should be tried.

Sorry but you're interpreting what I said to suit an agenda. I am not ok with people being sold a lie. I called it a disgrace.

Your stadium analogy doesnt line up with what I believe. All I was saying is that people forget that Saddam killed and tortured a multitude of people. I can and will say that without implying that I agree or disagree with the gulf war. There are two separate things here; Bush and Blairs actions, on which I havent formed a "sided" opinion on yet, and Saddams actions which I believe were clear genocide.

Its amazing that I cannot come here without forming an opinion on the 2nd gulf war, and be ridiculed for simply saying that we cannot forget Saddam's reputation and proven actions. That is all I am saying. I am taking that fact apart from Bush and Blair's guilt or lack thereof. I need to learn more about the Iraq war before I decide, if I ever do, whether it was a clear case of right or wrong.

Regardless, my part in this thread ends here. Too much putting of words into mouths, and being misquoted. Obviously having no clear opinion isnt an option.

lugha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What way of life would that be ? Watching greedy capitalists ruin economies, people in the poverty trap barely retain their dignity, and watch scum and con-men get bailed out using our hard-earned cash while getting millions in bonuses ?

Well that is a rather negative take on Western style democracy . But it is still the best way to organize society. And it is entirely within the gift of the people to dismiss any public representative who fails them.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our way of life. He was a scum and a threat to that of his own countrymen, but that could have been dealt with differently.

He was a potential threat. He had oil and with that wealth he had the potential to be a serious menace. Should the West have waited until he actually did acquire WMD before doing something about it?
And what was the "different" way he might have been dealt with?

thebman

lugha wrote: »

He was a potential threat. He had oil and with that wealth he had the potential to be a serious menace. Should the West have waited until he actually did acquire WMD before doing something about it?
And what was the "different" way he might have been dealt with?

Potential, potential, potential.

Maybe wait until you at least have evidence that he is trying to buy these weapons before invading.

Yes the west should not invade because a nation might has the potential to be a menace like changing the currency they wish us to buy their oil in which isn't really being a menace enough to deserve invasion.

Attacking another country should be a defensive move if you are the side of good. The war on Iraq was a preemptive move because maybe Iraq might have been a problem sometime in the future if they managed to get their hands on serious weaponry. I have a major problem with that.

lugha

thebman wrote: »

Maybe wait until you at least have evidence that he is trying to buy these weapons before invading.

No doubt you've heard the "joke" about the French wanting more evidence re Iraq. The last time they wanted more evidence it came marching in to Paris under a swastika.
It was a throw away line, but with a serious point. Should the West really wait until a threat is realized (at which point it may be too late to do much about it) before deciding too act? I say no.

thebman

lugha wrote: »

No doubt you've heard the "joke" about the French wanting more evidence re Iraq. The last time they wanted more evidence it came marching in to Paris under a swastika.
It was a throw away line, but with a serious point. Should the West really wait until a threat is realized (at which point it may be too late to do much about it) before deciding too act? I say no.

I say yes. Waiting for proof is the price you pay for being the side of good.

I don't think it would have come to do that with Iraq. I think Saddam wanted to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros and it was seen as stirring the pot and a good enough reason to remove Saddam.

I think that makes it an evil thing to do. Killing your own people and the innocent people in Iraq for oil to fill our cars with is an evil thing to do. It may have been a threat to our way of living but its called adapting to your environment. We'll have to do it anyway so nows as good a time as any if we really are running out of oil.

Zombrex

SLUSK wrote: »

There were no WMD:s in Iraq. It was all lies. Because of these lies many many innocent people are dead. Slobodan Milosevic was hung for his war crimes, so why can't they at least try Bush and Blair for war crimes? They would probably be found guilty.

Lying isn't a war crime. If it was most wars would be war crimes (ever heard of propaganda). Neither is waging an illegal war (by the standards of international treaties) a war crime.

What actual war crime do you think they should be put on trial for?

Nodin

The war itself constitutes a 'war crime' as it was illegal and unjustified.