Blairs war.

Sparks

RagShagBill wrote:

Explain how freeing a nation from an evil tyrant is morally wrong.

It isn't. Swapping one tyrant for another while killing a large number of innocents isn't though.

Explain how invading a country, with the support of it's civilians, is morally wrong.

How many of its civilians?

Explain how installing democracy to a country is morally wrong.

Because fundamentally, democracy is about empowering individual choice. Forcing that system on a group of people who weren't asked is counter to the fundamental principles of that system.

Please don't quote me the 100,000 figure, it's highly speculative and if the war hadn't happened, that many people would probably still have died as a result of Hussein's power.

Firstly, it's not highly speculative. Seriously. Before responding, read about it from people who actually have statistics qualifications, not just people here or on right-wing pundit sites. Start here, but then read the references as well.
Is there uncertainty to the number? Yes. Is that uncertainty unbounded? No. Could an uncertain number be found? Not any longer as insufficent care was taken in counting bodies. (There is a civilian bodycount out there, but the US isn't releasing it anytime soon and it only covers those civilians admitted to by infantrymen in their post-action reports).

Secondly, if you want to cite Hussein's being in power as being a morally wrong thing, you have to include in the list of those who bear responsibility, many of the people who decided to remove him.

And thirdy, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Both sides were and are a long way from models of right action and altruism. What counts is simply the group of people who got caught in the middle - and that it was known ahead of time by both sides that they'd be caught in the middle.

Face it, when you heard the 100,000 figure, deep down, you were delighted that you had a new figure to back your argument up. You may have expressed outrage at the figure, but admit that you felt a hint of delight at the fact that you now had more ammo.

Actually, the lancet's figure just confirmed the predictions made prior to the war. And since there's a large swathe of precedent to show that the people who commit acts on this scale are never held to any form of justice, all it does is depress people who actually look at the situation, because it's thumbing the nose at the whole notion of law and order and natural justice.

RagShagBill

It isn't. Swapping one tyrant for another while killing a large number of innocents isn't though.

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

How many of its civilians?

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

Because fundamentally, democracy is about empowering individual choice. Forcing that system on a group of people who weren't asked is counter to the fundamental principles of that system.

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once. How many turned out to vote? 8 million. I think that says something about their will for democracy. Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

Secondly, if you want to cite Hussein's being in power as being a morally wrong thing, you have to include in the list of those who bear responsibility, many of the people who decided to remove him.

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem doing that! I'm usually quite anti-American, anti-Corperate and anti-Globalistion. I have tried to stay anti-war, and I still am. But I think people must realise that this war is not as bad as people have made it out to be.


I'm not going to debate you Lancet figure rebuttle. You obviously know more about it than me, so I will concede the point. Even still, if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that. It's an attitude I used to hate, but only because I couldn't really argue with it.

Thats dubious when the US and UK governments helped put him in power in the first place, supported him for thirty some odd years and gave him all that WMD, oh and encouraged him to "attack his neighbors" and not batting an eye when he was "killing his own people".

I'm not debating why the war was fought. I believe the war was fought for the wrong reasons, but the result was good. I also think it is equally dubious that until America started to go against Saddam around Gulf War time, "the left" campaigned to oust Saddam. Once America got on his arse, they quietened down, and then campaigned for him not to be ousted.

I guess that's why many thought that the "election" in January was to vote out the US military?
Where was it that 300,000 people showed up to protest the US presence a few weeks back?

When did I say continued American military presence was a good thing?

And the report also states that it was mostly at the hands of the US military and mostly civilians.

Are you telling me that those who were killed when Saddam was around were not civilians? And saying that it was at the hands of the US does not make it worse. Saddam killing Iraqis is as bad as Uncle Sam killing Iraqis.

Of course the people that should be keeping count aren't and reports like this make it obvious as to why.

I fully agree.

I was delighted at the fact that someone bothered to count how many brown people were being killed.

Please don't bring race into this. The US aren't counting the bodies, but it is not because they are brown. If they went to war with Russians, they still wouldn't count the bodies. The reason is that they just couldn't be arsed. It's probably just as bad, but don't bring race into this, because it's not the issue.

Memnoch

RagShagBill wrote:

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

Democratically elected? don't make me laugh, there was nothing democratic about the entire process. It was just links in a chain, the US selected the interim administration that selected the people who could participate, essentially it's a US puppet that will be in power.

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

who did they ask? I love polls, according to polls John Kerry won the elections in america

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once. How many turned out to vote? 8 million. I think that says something about their will for democracy. Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

I thought this was about democracy, not what YOU think they can live with? How many of those 8 million were forced? How many of the votes were fabricated out of thin air? How many impartial international observers were there to make sure the elections were in fact held fairly ( no the people who never went there and then announced after wards that it seemed fair don't count). The coaltion can say whatever they want. THey have lied from day one and will lie to the last day, there is no stock in their word. If the new guy doesn't play ball with them, they will find a way of replacing him.

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem doing that! I'm usually quite anti-American, anti-Corperate and anti-Globalistion. I have tried to stay anti-war, and I still am. But I think people must realise that this war is not as bad as people have made it out to be.

It is as bad as people make it out to be. It's a corrupt war, fought by greedy people to improve their own wealth and power at the expense of others. Their is nothing defensible about the war.

I'm not going to debate you Lancet figure rebuttle. You obviously know more about it than me, so I will concede the point. Even still, if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that. It's an attitude I used to hate, but only because I couldn't really argue with it.

I'm sure the people who died agree that it's okay. The day america says. Okay we are going to drop a bomb on new york and kill 100,000 innocent americans anyway for the freedom of iraq, that day i'll accept this arguement. It's easy to kill someone else and claim you are doing it for their benefit, and it's a load of rubbish. Would you allow your entire family to be massacred if someone told you it would bring freedom to Iraq?

I'm not debating why the war was fought. I believe the war was fought for the wrong reasons, but the result was good. I also think it is equally dubious that until America started to go against Saddam around Gulf War time, "the left" campaigned to oust Saddam. Once America got on his arse, they quietened down, and then campaigned for him not to be ousted.

The left don't have a problem with ousting saddam. The left have a problem with the policy of american interventionism which has shown time and time and TIME again that their motives are always corrupt and so are the results. They put saddam in power, gave him weapons, allowed him to commit mass murder and supported him during it, when he refused to play ball they take him out and put someone else in his place under the guilse of democracy. No one campaigned for saddam to not be ousted. What people are campaigning again is the murder of 100,000 innocent iraqi's to further the greed and wealth of oil companies and weapon's manufacturers. And to say that the 100,000 people may have been killed by saddam anyway is a lie and false arguement. Using that logic, I know you will die someday, so it's okay if I come and kill you?

Are you telling me that those who were killed when Saddam was around were not civilians? And saying that it was at the hands of the US does not make it worse. Saddam killing Iraqis is as bad as Uncle Sam killing Iraqis.

Saddam killing iraqi's does not justify the american's killing the Iraqi's. And the truth of the matter is that it's the americans who have a large part of the blame to take for the deaths of iraqi's under saddam since they put him in power and supported his regime.

Please don't bring race into this. The US aren't counting the bodies, but it is not because they are brown. If they went to war with Russians, they still wouldn't count the bodies. The reason is that they just couldn't be arsed. It's probably just as bad, but don't bring race into this, because it's not the issue.

No off course not, murderers never count bodies of their victims. The irony here being that the americans have no problems counting the bodies of what they term combatants, yet they wont' count the bodies of civilians? But isn't that whom they are fighting the war for all along.

Sparks

RagShagBill wrote:

Who's the new tyrant? The democratically elected Jaffari? The new president, Talabani, the former human rights lawyer?!

Are you implying that they have soverign power in Iraq?
I suggest you look at the actual situation over there, in terms of who owns the companies, the public utilities, where legal jurisdictions end and so on. Those paint a rather different picture.

Asked the simple question "Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?", 50 per cent said to YouGov it was right and only 27 per cent said it was wrong.

How many of the Iraqi population were polled in secret ballot on the question?

It was forced on them once. I'm sure they can live with being forced to do so once.

I believe that the "it was done once, so subsequent times don't count" defence isn't one that holds water with any other illegal activity, so why would it hold with invasions?

Anyway, the coalition confessed that should some dictator be elected, they would have to accept it.

And if he'd had anti-US tendencies, you'd have noticed a sudden surge in pro-anyone-else feeling in the coalition and he'd have been removed rather rapidly.

if 100,000 people died, I still see the freedom of their countrymen as overiding that

That's good for you, but I suspect that that merely means that we can kill you in order to ensure our freedom, not a hundred thousand others who weren't consulted on the matter.

RagShagBill

Democratically elected? don't make me laugh, there was nothing democratic about the entire process. It was just links in a chain, the US selected the interim administration that selected the people who could participate, essentially it's a US puppet that will be in power.

There will always be teething problems with any new form of government in a country. However, what you have claimed suggests that there have been extremely sinister and wrong actions taken. If you can back it up with a credible source, my view will be changed dramatically. Until then, I remain skeptical.

All this aside, I asked who was the current tyrant? You merely argued with the word democratically. So, who is the current tyrant, and what tyranical acts has he committed?

who did they ask? I love polls, according to polls John Kerry won the elections in america

They asked 798 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad. Take a look.

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/OMI030101018_2.pdf

It is as bad as people make it out to be. It's a corrupt war, fought by greedy people to improve their own wealth and power at the expense of others. Their is nothing defensible about the war.

I agree that the war was fought for the wrong reasons. I agree it was probably fought to improve wealth. I disagree however that there is nothing defensible about the war. The Iraqis no longer live in a dictatorship. The Iraqis had the chance to vote a few months ago, 8 million chose to do so. Trade Unions are beginning to play a prominant role in Iraq. Surely this is better than before? Where we disagree is whether or not it was worth it, I respect your disapproval, and am unsure as to my position. Still anti, I think.

I'm sure the people who died agree that it's okay. The day america says. Okay we are going to drop a bomb on new york and kill 100,000 innocent americans anyway for the freedom of iraq, that day i'll accept this arguement. It's easy to kill someone else and claim you are doing it for their benefit, and it's a load of rubbish. Would you allow your entire family to be massacred if someone told you it would bring freedom to Iraq?

Imagine Ireland was ruled by a tyranical dictator. I would not allow my family to be massacred, however, I would accept putting my family at risk of being massacred.

And to say that the 100,000 people may have been killed by saddam anyway is a lie and false arguement. Using that logic, I know you will die someday, so it's okay if I come and kill you?

*The Kurds handed over to the non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.

*Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent.

*During the Iran-Iraq War, he has ordered chemical attacks in Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

*He has ordered the use of chemical weapons - Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard agents - against his own people, in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day."

*Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by the Associated Press.

*The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the 'Anfal.' in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.

*Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5%2dM%2edb&command=viewone&id=10&rnd=50.31708788211603

Saddam killing iraqi's does not justify the american's killing the Iraqi's. And the truth of the matter is that it's the americans who have a large part of the blame to take for the deaths of iraqi's under saddam since they put him in power and supported his regime.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not pro-American. I'm not justifying America's history. I think it's a bad one filled with awful decisions with sinister intent. I have argued in the past that America is beginning to do more bad in Iraq. They are imposing IMF and World Bank "re-structuring" policies, which I completely disagree with. However, you can't argue that no good has come of this war.

No off course not, murderers never count bodies of their victims. The irony here being that the americans have no problems counting the bodies of what they term combatants, yet they wont' count the bodies of civilians? But isn't that whom they are fighting the war for all along.

I don;t believe for a second that the US went in there with good intentions. America didn;t go in to free Iraq, and therefore I am not surprised by their failure to count the bodies. It's a disgrace and really does show them up. Espeically Tommy Frank's blunt insensitive, "We don't do body counts."

I thought this was about democracy, not what YOU think they can live with?

Ok, where the forced to vote? They didn't even have to live with it!

RagShagBill

Are you implying that they have soverign power in Iraq?
I suggest you look at the actual situation over there, in terms of who owns the companies, the public utilities, where legal jurisdictions end and so on. Those paint a rather different picture.

You suggested a tyrant is in charge.

How many of the Iraqi population were polled in secret ballot on the question?

798 Iraqis, and although I agree that is not enough, polls of that size are usually quiet accurate, espeically those of YouGov's.

I believe that the "it was done once, so subsequent times don't count" defence isn't one that holds water with any other illegal activity, so why would it hold with invasions?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I didn't talk abotu subsequent times. I'm talking about one election and how I think it's barable.

And if he'd had anti-US tendencies, you'd have noticed a sudden surge in pro-anyone-else feeling in the coalition and he'd have been removed rather rapidly.

Perhaps, but until it happens, your case is mere speculation.

That's good for you, but I suspect that that merely means that we can kill you in order to ensure our freedom, not a hundred thousand others who weren't consulted on the matter.

Well, in fairness, the YouGov poll shows that 50 percent thought the same way as me. Only 27% disagreeing.

redspider

shedseven wrote:

If every English voter was as one-eyed as this, none of the three main party leaders would fair too well as none of them are English!

Its not that English voters are any more "blinkered" than other groupings, its just human nature that people will more likely vote for candidates that reflect their culture, etc. Thats why for example, Labour are putting up Muslim candidates in Muslim areas. Its not that there aren't any non-muslim people in these areas who could represent them. They are just following the standard practices of politics.

Its true to say that Tony Blair was born in Scotland, and Michael Howard was born in Wales, but their upbringing and the culture the now espouse and endorse and follow is decidedly english and far from the Scottish highlands.

For example:

Tony’s full name is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. He was born in Scotland in 1953 and went to a private school in Edinburgh, before deciding to study law at Oxford University.

He developed a keen interest in playing guitar on the side, before graduating and moving on to become a lawyer. Tony specialised in employment law for seven years, but that was all set aside in 1983 when he became MP for Sedgefield.

He was elected leader of the Labour Party in 1994, and moved to a nice London pad three years later when he became Prime Minister.


So, when he is now presenting his credentials to the English voters, most of them do not even know that he was born in Scotland, and care less, as he is "de facto" English.

A Dub in Glasgo

The same with Gordon Brown who is now trumpeting the idea of Britishness (or is it UKishness?) now that he still represents a Scottish constituency but will effectively rule England in the future. The West Lothian question raises some fundamental issues within the UK and it is an issue that will not go away.

redspider

RagShagBill wrote:

I have been arguing those same points for so long ... I went to marches, I went to meetings and signed petitions. But there was always something lingering in the back of my mind. The majority of Iraqis supported the war effort, and this is something I couldn't ignore any longer. It is for this reason that I believe the war was morally right on the grand scheme of things. I don't agree with the way Bush or Blair went about it, I don't think for a minute that either of them had selfless reason, but the outcome of their actions have not been bad.

It turns out that the Attorney had serious legal reservations only a few days before Iraq was invaded. Several days later he changed his mind, suggestions have it that he was leaned on to do so.

We all know by now that the infamous WMDs probably didn’t exist.

So Bush & Blair then decided that the war was fought to free the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, a terrible leader who blackmailed, tortured and killed millions of people. He gassed 1 million Kurds, wiped out trade-unionists and allowed 500,000 Iraqis to starve to death.

I think you were right to be against the war when it happened, but I think you are now wrong to let the perpetrators off the hook if all things have turned out "reasonably ok". I take your point and agree with your view that nations must uphold the law. If they dont, then who will. I dont agree that it was only because of a legal process which prevented the war going ahead. You claim that the majority of Iraqi's were in favour of the war. Overall, this was probably the case with the minority Sunni's in leadership and control and the majority Shia put upon in various ways, not to mention the Kurds. However, I think that nations must also respect the wishes of minorities, and it cant be the case of a simple majority forcing its will on the rest. For example, lets look at Darfur. If the minority are being killed, maimed and slaughtered, that doesnt make it ok if the majority think so. Asking an exiled Shia Iraqi if he thought the war was ok, of course he would be likely to say yes.

Iraq was a difficult problem before the war of Mar 2003 which the western allies co-created, including for example the support of the CIA to Saddam. It should be remembered by all that the head of the CIA at the time was none other than George Bush Snr. Its a small world, as they say. How Iraq got into the Mar 2003 situation, with sanctions, after the invasion of Kuwait and the counter war thereafter, etc is long and complex. But bombing the place to bits and invading it was not the answer. As many say, if that is what 21st civilisation is all about, then we as a human race are very stupid and ignorant indeed.

You are very correct when you say that Bush and Blair didnt have a selfless reason. They dont care about Iraq. Blair cares about the US relationship. The US cares about control and market domination, including Oil supply and "friendly nations" with cheap goods and resources. The US has a very poor record on human rights across many countries.

You say that "the outcome of their actions have not been bad". What about the many thousands of children that have been killed? Surely if you knew just one of those kids very well, say you lived in their locaility, you knew their face, you knew their name, etc. Surely you would think that other options should have been tried first. Were all the dead people polled before hand and did they give the go ahead "Yes, Saddam is a bad man, please invade, kill whoever you must to get control, thats ok, drive right over us. We will do this for the common good. We will dir and thank you for it".

The answer is of course that the decisions were made by mostly white men many thousands of miles away who had nothing to lose and everything to gain: money, power, more money and more power, etc. Wars are good for politics, that is well known and understood by those that enter into a war.

You say:
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, a terrible leader who blackmailed, tortured and killed millions of people. He gassed 1 million Kurds, wiped out trade-unionists and allowed 500,000 Iraqis to starve to death."
.. in about 30 years.

I say:

"Tony Blair is a bad man, a poor leader who has politically blackmailed many, who has driven some to suicide whether directly or indirectly, who has been responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of people."
... in a couple of years.

Note: he has also wiped out trade-unionists


Two wrongs dont make a right. Just as if Saddam was a "bad man", and an "evil dictator", it doesnt mean you should go about killing thousands of people when alternatives are available. Other avenues should be exhausted first.

Now British people have the option of doing something about it. Yes, you need better education, better health and better business and social systems, but Labour will do this without Blair, as will the Lib Dems. I do not think that Britain would have gone to war in co-horts with the US if Labour had a different party leader. Its hard to believe, but Blair single-handedly brought the UK to war.

Now voters have a choice to get rid of Blair and they should grab that opportunity with both hands.


By the way, I asked whether Blair would ever be taken to court. It seems at last that this is about to happen:

LONDON (Reuters) - The families of British soldiers who died in Iraq will launch a bid to take Prime Minister Tony Blair to court on Tuesday over his "deception" in going to war.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050503/325/fhzai.html

It may be too late and too little, but hopefully Blair will be forced to go to court to properly test this nasty (and still continuing) episode.

Redspider

redspider

So, the UK have voted and Blair's version of Labour has been returned to Government, albeit with a reduced majority, but not enough to cause Tony to think about early resignation. There were some significant anti-Iraq-war votes however, such as Galloway who overturned a 10,000 Labour majority.

However, I think that the Lib Dems and the Conservatives were tactically naive. They could have easily formed a voting pact for certain margin constituencies agreeing not to contest each other but in a quid pro quo move attempt to change as many Labour seats as possible. If they would have done so, they would have won a lot more seats from Labour with the same swing that they got.

For example, take the two constituencies of Hendon and Hampstead. The results were:

DISMORE LAB 18596 44.4% -8%
EVANS-- CON 15897 38% 3.7%
BOETHE- LIB 5831 13.9% 2.4%

JACKSON-- LAB 14628 38.3% -8.6%
WAUCHOPE CON 10886 28.5% 3.9%
FORDHAM- LIB 10293 27% 6.4%

If LIB forgoe running a candidate in Hendon and asked everyone to vote CON, then the CON probably would have won. Likewise, in Hampstead, if the CON candidate dropped out and CON endorsed the LIB candidate, then LIB probably would have won. (By the way, I have nothing against Glenda Jackson as I think she is one of the better Lab MP's).

Using this technique in the above two constituencies, would have produced CON 1 LAB 0 LIB 1, rather than what turned out, CON 0 LAB 2 LIB 0. Using the technique in carefully selected paired constituencies across the UK could have swung perhaps another 20 to 30 seats or even much more. That could have produced a LAB minority and had a significant effect on the result.

The problem of course is that the Lib Dems get on even less with CON than they do with LAB so formulating such a pact would have been very difficult, but not impossible. There can also be side effects such as losing votes just because of the pact.

For a party such as the Lib Dems who have in modern times yet to have any power of their own, they have to date built a small but growing mandate. However, they have to start using more adventurous techniques if they want to grow quicker and such a voting pact with CON could have worked to their benefit this time. This was a missed opportunity to catch an anti-Labour vote.

redspider

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Unfortunately, I am in such a safe Labour seat that Labour could put a monkey up and people will still vote for him. The absence of any form of PR really means it is difficult to oust the chancer of an MP. I will be voting Lib Dem anyway. I hope Rose Gentle in our neighbouring constituency comes close

Your consituency was indeed safe for Labour:

TOMMY MCAVOY LAB 24054 55.6% -4.1%
IAN ROBERTSON LD 7942 18.4% +6.7%
MARGARET PARK SNP 6023 13.9% -1.3%
PETER CRERAR C 3621 8.4% -0.2%

Your Lib Dem rep polled well.


Unfortunately, Rose Gentle did not get any real level of support.

ADAM INGRAM LAB 23264 48.7% -4.2%
DOUGLAS EDWARDS SNP 8541 17.9% -5.8%
JOHN OSWALD LD 7904 16.6% +6.5%
TONY LEWIS C 4776 10% +0.3%
KIRSTEN ROBB GREEN 1575 3.3% +3.3%
ROSE GENTLE IND 1513 3.2% +3.2%


The Lib Dem's polled well in both and SNP were down in these two constituencies. However, they gained two seats overall and are now 6 strong.

Cyrmu lost one seat in a very close battled with Lib Dems.

Britain is a multi-nation land, that is clear, with popularity of the parties very much different across the island.

As for Northern Ireland, that is in a different universe. No Labour, No Conservative, No Lib Dems. How anyone can claim it is in the same country as the rest of the UK boggles all neutrals.

Redspider

A Dub in Glasgo

Pleased that the Lib Dem vote has increased although never in a million years will McAvoy be unseated.

Rose Gentle did not do well even though it was not likely asshe was standing aginst Ingram rather than in her own constituency of Glasgow Pollok

Sand

Apparently the memo that this thread referred to is a hoax, and the AG has asked the police to investigate. I honestly didnt realise this until now as it seems to have been reported a little more quietly than the initial memo and its implications were. It looks like this was just an attempt to try to smear Tony Blair, either a dirty trick by the Tories, or simply an irate activist/activists trying to make trouble for the "Greatest War Crinimal.....Ever!". And seeing as the trust issue was what cost Blair dearest, it probably contributed a lot to the reduction of the Labour majority.

I guess the lesson for opponents of Blair and his decision to go to war is when something comes along that seems too good to be true - a signed confession of a plot to deceive the public about the wars legality, along with future plans to invade numberous middle east states for example - then it probably is.

redspider

Sand wrote:

Apparently the memo that this thread referred to is a hoax, and the AG has asked the police to investigate. I honestly didnt realise this until now as it seems to have been reported a little more quietly than the initial memo and its implications were.

You are wrong. The memo that this thread refers to was indeed not a hoax and was published in full on the No.10 Downing St website! It should be remembered too that the UK Gov didnt publish it willingly yet were asked to repeatedly over several years yet they only did so in the end as a damage limitation exercise! The hoax memo you have referred to above is a different one!


George Galloway:
Btw, did any of you see the George Galloway appearence in front of a US Senate Cmte yesterday? (I dont see a thread on it here).

It was an amazing performance and Galloway, whether you agree with his credentials or not, got in quite a lot of strong points on the US. If this was a debating competition, it would be anti-war 1, pro-war 0, thats for sure.

Redspider

Quantum

redspider wrote:

It was an amazing performance and Galloway, whether you agree with his credentials or not, got in quite a lot of strong points on the US. If this was a debating competition, it would be anti-war 1, pro-war 0, thats for sure.

Not in my opinion. He may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies. The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam while they stuck to the facts very cooly.
In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer.

Sparks

Quantum, were you watching the same senate hearing as the rest of the world? You may not like Galloway, but that performance was one of the best ever given in a senate hearing, including the McCarthy debacles.
Video of the testimony is up on the BBC website here for those that missed it.

redspider

Quantum wrote:

He may get good marks for sheer balls but his whole presentation and accusations are nothing but a diatribe of lies. The senators were very smart in their treatment of him. They allowed him to blow off his steam while they stuck to the facts very cooly. In the end he got some admiration for his temerity, but was exposed as a liar and a collaborator with a mass murderer.

Quantum, what planet are you from? Or maybe you work for Halliburton? Did you not see the hearing in full? Look at the other thread on Galloway on this forum and read the press of the world and you will observe that the vast majority think that it was a stunning oration from him, and full of very good points. The Coleman Senator, to use a US euphesim, got "his ass kicked", and whilst the Levin Senator was better, Galloway used the forum to get in a lot of digs on the US and the mess of Iraq. (Levin by the way was seemingly anti-war).

You say that he was exposed as a liar and a collaborator of a mass murderer.
Then what do you think of Blair? Did Blair not lie about the WMD, about the 45 min claim, and did the invasion of Iraq that lair pushed for not cause thousands and thousands of deaths?

Take your head out of the sand, take off your blinkers, unblock your ears and go educate yourself!

Redspider

toiletduck

redspider wrote:

and go educate yourself!

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

dahamsta

toiletduck wrote:

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

Standard Unable To Debate Response #8.

Boggle

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

Was he the worst dictator in the world at the time? Was he the most likely to posess nuclear arms? Was he the most likely to be developing them?

Then why go to war with such an inconsequential little ba$tard???!.... I agree he was should have been removed from power but he should have been 1st on no-ones list. and even if he were - to do it under such dubious circumstances was damned irresponsible...

Calina

toiletduck wrote:

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there,

Yes. Sort of facilitated in that endeavour for a long time by the West if I recall the history of the 1980s correctly.

It's not that the West has completely learned the error of those ways either as currently, the West is not seeking to get rid of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan who is hardly more saintly.

redspider

toiletduck wrote:

you might wana take your own advice and read up on saddams iraq and the way he treated the people there

How can people get the "wrong end of the stick" so easily?

Did I mention anything about Saddam, did I indicate anywhere that I was in favour of his use of bio-chemical weapons on Kurdish villages in 1988/9? Did I indicate anywhere that I was in favour of his lack of democracy and his croney-ism system?

Of course I didnt. Why do people make the wrong assumption that pointing out faults in Blair's arguments for the war in Iraq is being pro-Saddam? I am not pro-Saddam nor have I ever been.

And dont forget who did support Saddam on his reign in power. It was the US and the UK.


You may wonder what do I stand for?

Well. I'll tell you. I am against killings and harming people, against oppresssion, against limits on freedoms, against limitation in choices, against economic systems that promote slave-like levels of existence, whoever produces these, whether Bush, Blair, Galloway, Hussein or Ahern/Harney.

I take a stance on issues, not on personalities. For example, if there is an issue and if Blair agrees with my opinion, then we are in agreement. But it does not mean that I "support Blair and everything that he wishes" with a carte blanche.

The problem with our current so-called democratic system is that it doesnt allow voters/people to decide on each issue, so in the UK the recent election was a compromise outcome. The majority didntwant Blair, the majority wanted Labour. They had to take what they got warts and all. But thats another discussion.

Redspider

toiletduck

damn, there was a lot more to what i had written but was at work, manager coming around to my desk etc. Anyways my main problem with the anti-war side is why didnt they protest against any of the other wars that have taken place? where was the marches against the war in the congo, the war in checnya, french troops in the ivory coast etc.? The only times they have protested is when America is involved e.g. the first gulf war, kosovo and the recent gulf war, also we heard nothing but howls of outrage about the terrible going ons in abu graibh but what about the rife sex abuse by UN peacekeepers in the congo? it barely made the news, nobody seemed to talk about it. It just seems to me that the anti-war people should correctly identify themselves an anti-american

bonkey

toiletduck wrote:

Anyways my main problem with the anti-war side is why didnt they protest against any of the other wars that have taken place? where was the marches against the war in the congo, the war in checnya, french troops in the ivory coast etc.?

One could equally ask where were/are the American wars when one looks at the world and the number of countries which match the supposed reasons that the wars in the ME were started for. Ruling tyrants....nuclear threat....

It just seems to me that the anti-war people should correctly identify themselves an anti-american

By the same logic, can we conclude that the Americans going to war should correctly identify themselves as anti-Islamic?

if you're going to over-simplify a situation to allow you to brand one side (the side you don't support)...see if you can't apply the same type of oversimplification to the side you do support, and then ask yourself why this branding of the good guys isn't correct. Your answer will generally tell you why branding the side you dno't support is also incorrect.

So - why are the Americans not anti-Islamic?

jc

toiletduck

bonkey wrote:

So - why are the Americans not anti-Islamic?

jc

well first of all a great number of Americans are muslim, the Kosovo action was taken to protect muslims who were being killed by Christians. The reason more wars havent been waged to instigate regime change in other horrifically run countries is the lack of support by the American public, the cost involved, the fact that America (and the Brits) are severly overstrected already and the fact that huge number of casualties would be completely unaccepatble in the case of North Korea. In these cases diplomacy must be used to help change occur.

toiletduck

im not oversimplifing the issues, i just want to know where were the marches from the anti-war lobby against other lesser known wars?

bonkey

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

you can see a number of reasons why the Americans aren't anti-islamic, but can't find comparable reasons why critics of teh war aren't anti-American.

Consider a couple of the points you raised.

...a great number of Americans are muslim
There are also many american critics of the American wars. Apply the same logic.

...the lack of support by the American public, the cost involved, the fact that America (and the Brits) are severly overstrected already and the fact that huge number of casualties would be completely unaccepatble
There is only so much time people can put into protesting - they can only afford so many protests in terms of money, time, bodies and effectiveness as well.

the Kosovo action was taken to protect muslims who were being killed by Christians
The public have made protests against occasional non-American issues as well. Stuff like...ooh...the massacre in Kosovo springs to mind for some reason.

Sptting a trend yet?

There are no shortage of reasons why the protest situation is more-or-less as you have described it, and the reasons will have a very strong overlap with the reasons why the Americans aren't waging small, ineffectual little wars all over the world but are instead focussing their efforts on what they see as the key issues that they can do something about.

As I already said...to get the answer to your question about the protestors, just look at the reasons you can offer why this logic doesn't work when dealing with the American actions. You can explain why the Americans aren't anti-Islamic...and I've now shown what I already pointed out - the same reasons (albeit slightly abstracted or reworded) show why the protestors aren't anti-American

By your answer, though, I'm guessing that you're either going insist that its somehow different, and that while its right and propert for America to focus its actions where it feels it will do the most good, its wrong or anti-American for protestors to do likewise.

toiletduck

fair enough, point taken.

Quantum

redspider wrote:

Quantum, what planet are you from? Or maybe you work for Halliburton? Did you not see the hearing in full? Look at the other thread on Galloway on this forum and read the press of the world and you will observe that the vast majority think that it was a stunning oration from him, and full of very good points. The Coleman Senator, to use a US euphesim, got "his ass kicked", and whilst the Levin Senator was better, Galloway used the forum to get in a lot of digs on the US and the mess of Iraq. (Levin by the way was seemingly anti-war).

You say that he was exposed as a liar and a collaborator of a mass murderer.
Then what do you think of Blair? Did Blair not lie about the WMD, about the 45 min claim, and did the invasion of Iraq that lair pushed for not cause thousands and thousands of deaths?

Take your head out of the sand, take off your blinkers, unblock your ears and go educate yourself!

I'm not interested in your juvenile insults. Unlike you, apparently, I am capable of forming my own views and I disagree with you and any of them that share your view. Most of the reports referred to his style and not his substance, which was non-existant. Blair lied to no one as has been proved over and over again, and the invasion saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If you disagree with me then have the maturity to do so without feeling that you have to be so aggressive and insulting.

Quantum

Boggle wrote:

Was he the worst dictator in the world at the time? Was he the most likely to posess nuclear arms? Was he the most likely to be developing them?

Yes, yes and yes. But I see little point in starting another pro and anti war thread where the insults become louder and anyone who disagrees with the anti american opinions gets abused and shouted down. Let's leave it as agreeing to disagree ?