Reply to: Blair pitches for EU presidency

[darmstadt]

I didnt see your precious German friends stepping up.

Probably becuase one of the main reasons is that they weren't allowed as their consititution (created after the war with help from the allies) did not allow them to base their soldiers on foreign soil. Also they didn't feel it was neccesary in many ways:

German leader says no to Iraq war | World news | The Guardian

Dieter Dettke

Bush also lied about them:

Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer made every effort they could. The German chancellor and foreign minister spared no effort with their appeals, whether in public or private, in small groups or with the eyes of the entire world upon them. In the end, though, it was all for naught. Then-United States President George W. Bush wouldn't allow anyone to change his mind. He was dead set on launching a war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and thereby bringing "freedom," as he put it, to the Middle East. It was a freedom that Bush described as " God's gift to mankind."

Over time, however, this would-be gift from God has grown to become the biggest foreign-policy disaster in US history since the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq and its subsequent occupation has cost more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and over 4,000 American soldiers their lives. Washington's credibility has been severely damaged, and Iraq will remain a trouble spot for the foreseeable future.

It is facts like these that have helped stoke the outrage since Bush recently published his memoirs, "Decision Points," in which he claims that Schröder -- the very man who won re-election in 2002 in large part based on his opposition to the war -- assured him in January 2002 that Germany would support the United States if it decided to go to war against Iraq. For his part, Schröder was quick to deny Bush's comments, claiming instead that "(t)he former American president is not telling the truth."

However they are making money out of it :-)

[RasputinDude]

I have day to day battles with HR whereby the "process" is more important than filling the job, and though I have yet to use the WMD excuse for sending unsolicited CVs, I might now make some up and drop them on members of internal resourcing

Now normally, I'm all up for giving the 'process' (and those that slavishly follow it) a good kicking. But I'm sorry again DA but you can't equate the process for recruiting someone to sit a desk and the process for ordering the invasion of a country with all the deaths and injury that such an invasion would cost. The two are not comparable in the slightest.

[fckvwls]

an idiot like him got into power,

He may be many things but an idiot is not one of them. One of the smartest politicians Britain has ever had imho.

[vetran]

If I pick up a rifle and shoot someone I'm told to, I'm a murderer.
If I join the army and pick up a rifle then shoot someone I'm told to I'm a hero.

Bliar went to war at Bush's request without following the formalities which are there to stop power mad lunatics declaring war on people they don't like. Its what makes us civilised we follow the rules.

He blatantly lied to the electorate about a very serious matter and may have been involved in the unresolved and suspicious death of a scientist who was an inconvenience.

Yes Saddam was vile but that is why we were encouraging insurgents. In the hope they would kill him for us. that is the 'civilised' way.

[Doggy Styles]

I don't think that's even slightly true. He might be self-motivated, greedy and evil - you can make cases for those - but he's clearly not dumb.

That is true, not politically he isn't. But he depends on others for ideas, visions and solutions and just presents them. What does he actually believe in?

MPs from 'both sides' have opined that, left to his own devices, he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag (that's a metaphor I remember one of them using).

Although, I don't suppose all that that matters if he is just a figurehead presenting the company line.

[Robinho]

If you want to do operation liberate Iraq then tell that to the electorate and get it voted on in parliament.

[DodgyAgent]

And his bum chum Bush.

I didnt see your precious German friends stepping up.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't think that's necessarily the case; it's quite feasible that other major players, like France and Germany could have been persuaded by the case that this man's regime was simply so putrid and would present a danger in the future that a bigger coalition could have been built, and it's quite possible that the British public AND the US public could have been persuaded by that; I was actually in favour of strikes against Saddam and Iraq, up to the point that Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN, and it was then apparent that the evidence presented for WMDs was so meagre that I felt I was being lied to. Blair's '45 minutes' story was such obvious scaremongering it made me very suspicious too. Now OK, sometimes governments need to lie and keep things secret; I'm not that naïve, but lying through his teeth and presenting a complete lack of evidence as 'overwhelming evidence' and then sending young people to kill and get killed, no that's unforgivable.

Well if he had gained "permission" then he probably would have needed to get it also from Russia and China too so it is quite conceivable that Saddam would have been at large today. As for sending people to be killed then the same would have happened if he had gained permission anyway.

[Mich the Tester]

And his bum chum Bush.

Bush could plead mental incapacity.

[darmstadt]

Blair is a war criminal.

It's very simple.

And his bum chum Bush.

[Robinho]

What isn't simple about it?

He lied to take us to war.

He should be tried quite frankly.

[Mich the Tester]

Blair is a war criminal.

It's very simple.

He is, but it's not simple.

[Robinho]

Blair is a war criminal.

It's very simple.

[Mich the Tester]

That is all fair enough and pretty disgraceful. had it gone through "proper channels" then saddam Hussein may well be still alive and kicking today. At times like this because we live in such an obsessively democratic environment it is easy for nothing to ever get done.
I entirely accept your point but I still think that the ends justified the means but to simply write Blair off as a "war criminal" because he ignored your precious "process" conveniently ignores the consequences of what would have happened had he been left alone.

I don't think that's necessarily the case; it's quite feasible that other major players, like France and Germany could have been persuaded by the case that this man's regime was simply so putrid and would present a danger in the future that a bigger coalition could have been built, and it's quite possible that the British public AND the US public could have been persuaded by that; I was actually in favour of strikes against Saddam and Iraq, up to the point that Colin Powell gave his presentation to the UN, and it was then apparent that the evidence presented for WMDs was so meagre that I felt I was being lied to. Blair's '45 minutes' story was such obvious scaremongering it made me very suspicious too. Now OK, sometimes governments need to lie and keep things secret; I'm not that naïve, but lying through his teeth and presenting a complete lack of evidence as 'overwhelming evidence' and then sending young people to kill and get killed, no that's unforgivable.

[DodgyAgent]

You may be right, so why did Blair come out with that bulltulip about '45 minutes' and weapons of mass destruction? He might well have convinced everyone that it was right to get rid of Saddam, although I have to wonder whether there might have been other ways to do that. But no; people weren't convinced, so instead of persuading further on a legitimate case, a pile of bulltulipe was invented, the US joined in with the most ridiculous presentation where Colin Powell told everyone that a little hut in the middle of nowhere was a chemical weapons station when the photo could just as well have been of a trucker stopping for a piss in a public bog, and we were told the danger wa imminent. Blair and Bush could have built a case based on the truth, but instead they bulltulipted their way to war.

That is all fair enough and pretty disgraceful. Had it gone through "proper channels" then saddam Hussein may well be still alive and kicking today. At times like this because we live in such an obsessively democratic environment it is easy for nothing to ever get done.
I entirely accept your point but I still think that the ends in this case justified the means - but then I have never worked for a large corporate with its cumbersome processes. To simply write Blair off as a "war criminal" because he ignored your precious "process" conveniently ignores the consequences of what would have happened had he been left alone.
I have day to day battles with HR whereby the "process" is more important than filling the job, and though I have yet to use the WMD excuse for sending unsolicited CVs, I might now make some up and drop them on members of internal resourcing - only difference being mine will be real.