Turn on thread page Beta

Iraq Inquiry: Anyone watching the Tony Blair interview? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaydot)
    Blair is a wasteman .. first person iv seen who could never do the time ...but still did the crime.

    and to the idiot that said iraqis are better off well after you blow up the whole house to get the snake(saddam).. all your left with is a few orphans who are easier to feed food and lies.. makes my heart bleed.

    now im off to watch eastenders.
    When we sent over aid in the form of money, food and medicine years ago, Saddam withheld it from the iraqis, the people it was sent for. At least now, if anything, they will have a chance at better access to the bare minimum we expect in a modern society.

    I mean christ, the way some people talk about saddam it was like he was an innocent saint, and we came in and ruined the god job he was doing...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrChem)
    When we sent over aid in the form of money, food and medicine years ago, Saddam withheld it from the iraqis, the people it was sent for. At least now, if anything, they will have a chance at better access to the bare minimum we expect in a modern society.

    I mean christ, the way some people talk about saddam it was like he was an innocent saint, and we came in and ruined the god job he was doing...
    Better the devil you know, than TALIBAN.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrChem)
    When we sent over aid in the form of money, food and medicine years ago, Saddam withheld it from the iraqis, the people it was sent for. At least now, if anything, they will have a chance at better access to the bare minimum we expect in a modern society.

    I mean christ, the way some people talk about saddam it was like he was an innocent saint, and we came in and ruined the god job he was doing...
    It dosent matter about aid and money because we have been playing Saddam like a pawn! And just like we are trying to buy the Taliban with money .. we were trying that with him.. but have any of you considered what would happen when saddam is out of the picture eventually??.. leading too all the possibilities?.. the outcome could have been democracy or it could have been a worse regime?.. my point is that we withheld a nation from reaching its full potential without a revolution. and once you do that .. you show yourself to be imperialistic ... what ever the true intentions we had in mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaydot)
    It dosent matter about aid and money because we have been playing Saddam like a pawn! And just like we are trying to buy the Taliban with money .. we were trying that with him.. but have any of you considered what would happen when saddam is out of the picture eventually??.. leading too all the possibilities?.. the outcome could have been democracy or it could have been a worse regime?.. my point is that we withheld a nation from reaching its full potential without a revolution. and once you do that .. you show yourself to be imperialistic ... what ever the true intentions we had in mind.
    You reckon the world would be a safer place if we'd have left Iraq alone?

    You know we were 'containing' Iraq anyway, with trade embargos, no fly zones etc. But as that began to wear thin, the capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction greatened. And after 9/11, the US and UK viewed risk in a different way. Surely thinking in the basic terms of the amount of uk lives lost (not saying thats what it all boils down to mind you) blair has potentially saved tens of thousands of lives, no?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Better the devil you know, than TALIBAN.
    Well, they are different people. We topple one evil dictator and you seem pissed that we didn't take care of another problem at the same time?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Amit92)
    That there were WoMD
    He had acted upon intelligence he received that there was a possibility that Iraq had WMDs they had the Scud Missile which had already proved capable of hitting targets in Israel. Is it reasonable to wait around and take chances with a person such as Saddam? Dictators aren't going to warn everyone they're about nuke you.

    Tony Blair did the right thing under the circumstances and there really isn't any evidence he intentionally mislead Parliament. Of course, it is easy to condemn him but what if there were WMDs?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by MGS)
    I was sad enough to watch most if it today - I agree with the vast majority of Tony Blair's arguments and points. For some reason I have always liked the guy. But Iraq is a better place, granted in the short term things have not turned out as planned, but in the long run things will improve.. We just need to move onto Iran next to ensure stability in the area.
    We certainly need a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and we can start with a peaceful and prosperous Iraq and I am sure it will be to the benefit of future generations of Iraqis.

    And yes, something needs to be done about Iran.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yeah saddam killed 300,000 while BUSH+BLAIR killed probably 3 million iraqis. Who is more worse? What is more They gave weapons to Saddam to kill. Complete hypocrisy.

    The socialist society as always at UNI giving their leaflets
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    He had acted upon intelligence he received that there was a possibility that Iraq had WMDs they had the Scud Missile which had already proved capable of hitting targets in Israel. Is it reasonable to wait around and take chances with a person such as Saddam? Dictators aren't going to warn everyone they're about nuke you.

    Tony Blair did the right thing under the circumstances and there really isn't any evidence he intentionally mislead Parliament. Of course, it is easy to condemn him but what if there were WMDs?
    What utter *********, the fact that the China, France, Russia and most of the world(which include organistaions such as the EU and UN) strongly opposed the intervention just goes to show how credible the WMD claims actually were.

    Following your warmongering logic shouldn't North Korea be next, and then once we're doing saving them, shall we head off to Iran and save them too? I'll tell you what, instead of occupying these countries and losing trillions of dollars in the process for something which will amount to nothing, if anything sparking a civil war and killing a few million more, why not simply nuke it? Would your perverted lust be satisfied with that?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by jamesdoute)
    yeah saddam killed 300,000 while BUSH+BLAIR killed probably 3 million iraqis. Who is more worse? What is more They gave weapons to Saddam to kill. Complete hypocrisy.

    The socialist society as always at UNI giving their leaflets
    Blair is not responsible for all the people dead in Iraq. He may have ordered in troops but because Saddam had used poison gas to kill his own people, invaded their own neighbouring countries, repeatedly attacked us while we defended Kuwait from their invasion and so on. He presented a threat. You are confusing legal and illegal actions.

    Groups are now shooting and trying to kill our soldiers all we can do is fight back, and also the vast majority of those were killed by other Iraqis. We went in to bring Saddam to justice in Iraqi courts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    We certainly need a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and we can start with a peaceful and prosperous Iraq and I am sure it will be to the benefit of future generations of Iraqis.

    And yes, something needs to be done about Iran.
    Haven't you yet taken the hint from the Middle East, we're not welcome.

    A stabilizing influence, really? As soon as the US leaves Iraq every Iraqi minister in the Green Zone will be left hanging from lamp-posts, if that's your definition of peaceful then by all means, enlighten me, what's your definition of unpeaceful?

    Who are you to speak about Iraq's future generations, will the fact that quite a few of them won't have known their parents benefit them? Will the fact that they'll be living in a war-torn country benefit them? What about the fact that most of them, if not all, will want to avenge their parent's deaths?

    I was hoping you'd come to Iran. I'm guessing your warmongering lust is dying out as there haven't been enough deaths for you lately, I'll tell you what, I'll phone up Obama and tell him to inform his military that you want to see a bit more action. Would you be satisfied if we nuked Tehran?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    What utter *********, the fact that the China, France, Russia and most of the world(which include organistaions such as the EU and UN) strongly opposed the intervention just goes to show how credible the WMD claims actually were.
    It's easy to say that now. But there was intelligence at the time that pointed to WMDs in Iraq. What was the reasonable action for us to take, irrespective of others? Bearing in mind, the nature of the weapons and the person involved.

    Following your warmongering logic shouldn't North Korea be next, and then once we're doing saving them, shall we head off to Iran and save them too? I'll tell you what, instead of occupying these countries and losing trillions of dollars in the process for something which will amount to nothing, if anything sparking a civil war and killing a few million more, why not simply nuke it? Would your perverted lust be satisfied with that?
    You're just starting to babble now :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Haven't you yet taken the hint from the Middle East, we're not welcome.
    I am sure the Nazis didn't welcome the US too. Thankfully, we don't operate on the who "welcomes" us card.

    I am also referring to one country! :rolleyes:

    A stabilizing influence, really? As soon as the US leaves Iraq every Iraqi minister in the Green Zone will be left hanging from lamp-posts, if that's your definition of peaceful then by all means, enlighten me, what's your definition of unpeaceful?
    Arh, so they would have been better with Saddam?

    Who are you to speak about Iraq's future generations, will the fact that quite a few of them won't have known their parents benefit them? Will the fact that they'll be living in a war-torn country benefit them? What about the fact that most of them, if not all, will want to avenge their parent's deaths?
    You're referring to the present. I was talking the future.

    I was hoping you'd come to Iran. I'm guessing your warmongering lust is dying out as there haven't been enough deaths for you lately, I'll tell you what, I'll phone up Obama and tell him to inform his military that you want to see a bit more action. Would you be satisfied if we nuked Tehran.
    The only one suggesting war here and displaying "warmongering lust" is you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Blair is not responsible for all the people dead in Iraq. He may have ordered in troops but because Saddam had used poison gas to kill his own people, invaded their own neighbouring countries, repeatedly attacked us while we defended Kuwait from their invasion and so on. He presented a threat. You are confusing legal and illegal actions.

    Groups are now shooting and trying to kill our soldiers all we can do is fight back, and also the vast majority of those were killed by other Iraqis. We went in to bring Saddam to justice in Iraqi courts.
    I'll concede that Blair is not responsible for every death, he's responsible for half of them, the other half being on Bush's hands.

    These arguments against Iraq are preposterous to say the least, what goes on in their country is none of our business, if it was the case then why haven't we sorted out the Balkans, Zimbabwe, North Korea or Israel because of their use of white phosphorus? I believe we're seeing a pattern evolving here, none of these countries have oil, and that was the only reason we invaded Iraq.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am sure the Nazis didn't welcome the US too. Thankfully, we don't operate on the who "welcomes" us card.

    I am also referring to one country! :rolleyes:
    The Nazis were a threat to the world and wouldn't have stopped after they finished conquering Europe, they'd have stopped until they were done with the world. The same cannot be said for Saddam, who never in his life, set out to conquer the world.

    Arh, so they would have been better with Saddam?
    He wasn't the one who killed a million odd of his civilians was he?

    You're referring to the present. I was talking the future.
    Oh how stupid of me, I hadn't realised that your future was in the year 3000 when this ordeal may finally be over.

    The only one suggesting war here and displaying "warmongering lust" is you.
    Not quite, because unlike you, I was against the war, along with every other person in the world with common sense at the time.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'll concede that Blair is not responsible for every death, he's responsible for half of them, the other half being on Bush's hands.
    I wasn't talking to you in that post. I didn't ask you to concede to anything ...

    These arguments against Iraq are preposterous to say the least, what goes on in their country is none of our business, if it was the case then why haven't we sorted out the Balkans, Zimbabwe, North Korea or Israel because of their use of white phosphorus? I believe we're seeing a pattern evolving here, none of these countries have oil, and that was the only reason we invaded Iraq.
    The comment you have just said is outrageous.

    According to you, the worst criminals and dictators should be left to do whatever they want in their country.

    That is the fundamental difference between us. I feel we have a duty, and you don't.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    The Nazis were a threat to the world and wouldn't have stopped after they finished conquering Europe, they'd have stopped until they were done with the world. The same cannot be said for Saddam, who never in his life, set out to conquer the world.
    You said we should be involved with crimes where the dictators don't "welcome us".

    He wasn't the one who killed a million odd of his civilians was he?
    Yes, nearly. What is the point of this remark? Is there a mark where if it goes beyond a million, we should intervene!

    Oh how stupid of me, I hadn't realised that your future was in the year 3000 when this ordeal may finally be over.
    A great deal of the problem now is between Sunni/Shia and extremist groups in Iraq.

    Not quite, because unlike you, I was against the war, along with every other person in the world with common sense at the time.
    Babbling again ...

    I am off for a full-English breakfast ... I'll respond to your responses later.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    It's easy to say that now. But there was intelligence at the time that pointed to WMDs in Iraq. What was the reasonable action for us to take, irrespective of others? Bearing in mind, the nature of the weapons and the person involved.
    Was Saddam ever a threat to the UK, any of it's overseas territories or even the US?

    You're just starting to babble now :rolleyes:
    Next time, you'd have been better off not voicing your opinion in that case. The fact that you still defend Blair just proves how much of a buffoon you really are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I wasn't talking to you in that post. I didn't ask you to concede to anything ...
    :rofl:

    The comment you have just said is outrageous.

    According to you, the worst criminals and dictators should be left to do whatever they want in their country.
    There have been far worse than Saddam, yet the UK hasn't invaded them.

    Why wasn't China ever invaded when Mao was massacring people left, right and centre?

    What about North Korea?

    And dare I say it, why didn't you invade the Soviet Union?

    All 3 have been far worse than Saddam, yet nothing was done, talk about having a duty eh?

    That is the fundamental difference between us. I feel we have a duty, and you don't.
    Then by all means, pick up your rifle and go, oh wait.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You said we should be involved with crimes where the dictators don't "welcome us".
    No I didn't, did you find that in the place as Blair found the WMDs?


    Yes, nearly. What is the point of this remark? Is there a mark where if it goes beyond a million, we should intervene!
    Well in the process of 'liberating' Iraq, you've done far worse than he ever did, ironic to say the least.

    A great deal of the problem now is between Sunni/Shia and extremist groups in Iraq.
    I wonder who's to blame for that.

    Babbling again ...

    I am off for a full-English breakfast ... I'll respond to your responses later.
    It's becoming rather apparent that you use this 'card' if you will, whenever you don't know what to say, or are unable to say anything, because you know just how wrong the intervention was.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.