Reply to: War Hero Blair insulted by Tree Huggers

[Fungus]

Dictators do tend to bring stability. You won't hear our politicians say that though as it goes against the official line that democracy solves all problems.

That was the official line for years. To her shame Mrs. T. supported apartheid and the Shah of Iran. And they supported oppressive Middle East regimes as does Blair and his slimies. But do you remember Iraq Invasion 1 after that cheeky chappy Saddam strolled over to Kuwait with some of his mates for an extended party that got a bit too rowdy? "Oy, Saddam, turn the music down, or we'll launch the largest land based tank invasion ever seen"

I think the problem as they see it is that oppressive regimes lead to Islamo-Fascist terrorism and instability.

Though I do wonder why they wanted to invade Iraq.

[sappatz]

tony blair

technically tony blair is a war criminal and he could be indicted for the following crimes : (nuremberg and hague trials come to mind)

- crimes against peace : preventive war of aggression against sovereign state, without any UN endorsement, and on fabricated grounds (no weapons of mass destruction were ever found)

needless to say that preventive warfare goes against all UN and international admitted conventions

- breach of geneva, hague, international human rights by systematic torture of prisoners in concentration camps. Some of those concentration camps are secret (secret cia prisons in eastern europe) and not accessible to the red cross. Even guantanamo is not acessible to the red cross
Even uncle adolf allowed the international red cross access to some camps.


Now like adolf hitler before him, tony blair plays the card of patriotism bny honoring war heroes. Which "war" ?

[Central-Scrutiniser]

Doubleplusgood statistic follows ....

Fetzer also noted today's Zogby International Poll, which shows that 90% of American troops in Iraq believe that they are fighting to avenge Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11.


"This would be funny if it weren't so sad", Fetzer said. "The administration falsely linked Iraq to 9/11 even though it knew better", he remarked.

[stackpole]

We went to war for Blair's legacy.

Except, instead of the great wartime leader who rid the world of the bogeyman, he simply destabilized the region. What a ranker!

There are plenty of new Saddam Hussein's waiting to take the place of the original.

[sunnysan]

Iraq

My opinion is that such an event is neither right nor wrong from a politcal standpoint. Evry major leader in the world will do whatever it takes to further their interests, which in theory in a democracy should be the interests of the country as a whole.


In this murky world, you cannot accuse the one party of terrorism and the other of liberators. Everybody is fighting to prtotect their own interests.

Us and the Yanks love to spit vitriol on ME splinter groups calling them terrorists while we, although politically clean, are very often complicit in terrorism by proxy.

I think the biggest problem is , IMHO that Bliar, although his intentions may be sound, seems to be too much of an idealist and has not got a realistic comprehension of the realities of geopolitical power.

Which is why I would rather see booze soaked corrupt blue blood octogenerians in power than middle class, social idealists like we have at the moment.

[threaded]

We are governed by morons.

That is nearly what democracy means. It comes from the Greek, demokratia, demos + kratin + ia, demos = the people, kratin = cretins, ia = to rule.

HTH

[VectraMan]

Dictators do tend to bring stability. You won't hear our politicians say that though as it goes against the official line that democracy solves all problems.

[wendigo100]

Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him.

I don't believe it is a better place.

Saddam fought al qu'eda, and as TwoWolves says, he provided a buttress against his dodgier neighbours and without him Iraq is breaking itself up in civil war between two different theocracies. He did all that far better than we can ever hope to, despite Blair's fantasies.

It is a better place without his sons though.

[TwoWolves]

Honestly you guys? You believe all that? Iraq was a perfect political buttress to Iran. The removal of Saddam has freed Iran and its mad President to turn his ire towards Israel and the rest of the world. Invading Iraq was the dumbest thing in history, yeah lets replace a broken secular dictatorship with a Shiite theocracy, cool move. My Dad warned me about Iraq in 1974.

The writing was on the wall.

We are governed by morons.

[Fungus]

Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

(1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
(2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.

From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

(1) Shows countries like Syria and Iran that they can merrily carry on sponsoring terrorist groups such as Hesbollah with impunity, and that groups close to the government in Pakistan can continue to support terrorists.

(2) That the US and UK are still incapable of defending their interests and that although the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked, the ensuing mayhem will be a breeding ground for fanatacism, leading to a collapse of the country, and a descent into civil war.

(3) That public opinion in the West is all important, and the large numbers of dead soldiers coming back from Iraq is alienating public opinion against the war.

[sasguru]

codswallop!

The war in Iraq, was, is and will remain so, wrong for one simple reason. Saddam Hussain had not invaded any other sovereign nation at the time of the invasion.

OK he attacked Kuwait and got his but kicked for that one (10 years previously). But even then when we could have carried on invading Iraq, overthrown him then and may even have carried a large chunk of the Middle East with us in doing so. But the powers that be felt that the limits of what the UN and international law allowed.

Even Afghanistan could be justified since it's (then) leadership protected the organisation that did attack the US on September 11th 2001.

Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country. We have to stay therefore but the original war was wrong.

Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him but invading is something the international community should deal with, not one country or even a few. The international community singularly failed to do that. That is what we should deal with.

I didn't say the war was right (are you defining that morally, by the way?) My question is what effect will it have in the long run? I'm not sure myself. While it will encourage individual suicide bombers who will all die out anyway (by definition), it will discourage more overt aggression by any other powers in the region.

[Dundeegeorge]

Too late, too late

Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country.

Bombed them back to the stone age. They didn't have far to go, did they?

[zathras]

Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

(1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
(2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.

codswallop!

The war in Iraq, was, is and will remain so, wrong for one simple reason. Saddam Hussain had not invaded any other sovereign nation at the time of the invasion.

OK he attacked Kuwait and got his but kicked for that one (10 years previously). But even then when we could have carried on invading Iraq, overthrown him then and may even have carried a large chunk of the Middle East with us in doing so. But the powers that be felt that the limits of what the UN and international law allowed.

Even Afghanistan could be justified since it's (then) leadership protected the organisation that did attack the US on September 11th 2001.

Now we are there having bombed large chunks of the country back to the Stone Age we should repair and rebuild the country. We have to stay therefore but the original war was wrong.

Don't get me wrong Saddam Hussein is an evil b*****d and the world may very well be a better place without him but invading is something the international community should deal with, not one country or even a few. The international community singularly failed to do that. That is what we should deal with.

[Central-Scrutiniser]

Ok as you're not quoting 1984 in a gratuitious way, I'll bite. I have to admit I'm not an enthusiast for the Iraq war. Recently I've begun to revise my opinion. I believe there are some genuinely dangerous people in the Middle East (or Eurasia ! if you prefer) who under Clinton's admin got the impression that the West (the US) was becoming a soft touch.

From a pragmatic point of view the war serves these reasons:

(1) Shows any despot in the area that they can be removed any time. No regime in the area will ever "do a Taliban" and blatantly sponsor a 9/11 again.
(2) That the US and UK ARE still capable of defending their interests and that the US is capable of a ferocious response if provoked.

Are you sure the Iraq war is against our interests?

Engsoc lEader I agree that Blair should make this case to the relatives.

Doubleplusgood.

Clearly the Eurasian tyrant Saddam will not now be able to launch another terror attack upon Airstrip One he has been taught a lesson he will never forget.

The booty from our Oil conquest is more than enough compensation for those families who have the honour of making the ultimate sacrifice for our Great Engsoc Leader.

War is Peace.
We can force you to be Free.

[Dundeegeorge]

Your point is well made Sas, but compromise is everything

Perhaps Blair should just come clean and admit that we had to go into Iraq 'pour encourager les autres', and then we should have his head on a spike.