Iraq Inquiry: Anyone watching the Tony Blair interview?

MrChem

He was becoming a threat. The only reason he wasn't an immediate threat was because we were containing him with trade embargos, no fly zones etc.

A threat to whom? The EU and UN didn't believe so, certainly not enough of a threat to go to war with.

Some people are so naive and just jump on the blame blair and bush bandwagon for screwing everything up. Stop and think for ***** sake about how worse it would be now if we hadn't intervened.

How much worse for who? I'm pretty sure, sitting on your island, you wouldn't have been affected by Saddam. Stop kidding yourself, we're not talking about the new Hitler here.

And yes, a lot of Iraqis are better off, they've even said now. Stop believing in some fantasy where Saddam treated the iraqis well, and live up to the reality.

Don't be so naive, these Iraqi polls are done inside the Green Zone, by the men who'll be hanging from lamp-posts as soon as the US leaves. The vast majority of Iraqis now hate the US and UK even more than they previously did.

Reply 62

Stalin

Was Saddam ever a threat to the UK, any of it's overseas territories or even the US?

Again, like I said earlier in this thread (and I am beginning to think I am repeating myself) he believed there was a threat since he may have had WMDs.

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.

More babble ...

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?

Saddam had made claims of having WMDs and we believed him. If even if we were to invade N. Korea that would start a war with China and thus WWIII. Unlike North Korea, Iraq had no borders with anyone we 'were scared of', so we could do something without risking starting a massive war. In any case, this is about Invasion of Iraq and not 'why not invade everyone else'.

Then by all means, pick up your rifle and go, oh wait.

Babble ...

No I didn't, did you find that in the place as Blair found the WMDs?

You said "haven't you yet taken the hint from the Middle East, we're not welcome" implying we shouldn't have gone .. because of that.

Well in the process of 'liberating' Iraq, you've done far worse than he ever did, ironic to say the least.

Like I said, we removed a dictator because we believed had WMDs. I think that was the right option under the circumstances, and I would have done the same. I would have risked being hated, than ignoring the intelligence information and waiting and giving Saddam time to attack.

I wonder who's to blame for that.

The extremists needed to find a 'hub' and Iraq provided cover. That is the main reason why the fatalities are so high.

I do believe that that is a negative secondary effect of the invasion of Iraq. We went in to get Saddam and put him on trial in his own country. We would have left much sooner, had the extremists not seized the chance.

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.

What 'card'? Having breakfast?

If you're referring to me saying that you're babbling, then that's exactly what you're doing with comments like "pick up your gun and kill" etc .... seriously, what do you expect me to say to such juvenile comments?

Reply 63

Lord Hysteria

Again, like I said earlier in this thread (and I am beginning to think I am repeating myself) he believed there was a threat since he may have had WMDs.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the argument itself is preposterous. In this day and age, we don't go around 'fixing' countries without the approval of other countries.

The UN said no as did the EU.

Saddam had made claims of having WMDs and we believed him. If even if we were to invade N. Korea that would start a war with China and thus WWIII. Unlike North Korea, Iraq had no borders with anyone we 'were scared of', so we could do something without risking starting a massive war. In any case, this is about Invasion of Iraq and not 'why not invade everyone else'.

How would it start a war with China? China now, and this is the difference between now and the Korean War, rely on the US economy to keep theirs alive, to think that they'd defend North Korea, a country with less influence than Zimbabwe is again, and like most your theories, preposterous.

You said "haven't you yet taken the hint from the Middle East, we're not welcome" implying we shouldn't have gone .. because of that

.

Not solely because of that, there are other issues. Let's start with the blatantly obvious one, the fact that Saddam had no WMDs. Apart from the Australia, Denmark, Poland and the US, the rest of the world opposed the war, our neighbours and, arguably, our future for instance.

Like I said, we removed a dictator because we believed had WMDs. I think that was the right option under the circumstances, and I would have done the same. I would have risked being hated, than ignoring the intelligence information and waiting and giving Saddam time to attack.

In this day and age, don't theories need to be backed up by evidence, albeit, hard evidence if we're talking about war?

The extremists needed to find a 'hub' and Iraq provided cover. That is the main reason why the fatalities are so high.

I do believe that that is a negative secondary effect of the invasion of Iraq. We went in to get Saddam and put him on trial in his own country. We would have left much sooner, had the extremists not seized the chance.

Which extremists are you talking about?

If you're referring to me saying that you're babbling, then that's exactly what you're doing with comments like "pick up your gun and kill" etc .... seriously, what do you expect me to say to such juvenile comments?

You said the fundamental difference between us is that you feel you have a duty.

Then by all means, feel free to pick up your rifle and fight for this liberation you so strongly believe in, the fact is that you won't, but somebody else's son can go in there and come back disabled for life.

Reply 64

thunder_chunky

19

riz1234

hes well clever and so confident - shines through in his body language. apparently he took lessons and spent lots of money in learning to do the right facial impressions and hand movements in different situations. that way hes able to suck up more and get away with things.

Yeah.
He always finds a way out. I wish just once he would have that smile wiped off his face.

Not in a violent way, just that he's screwed over or stabbed in the back by one of his colleagues or something so that the few friends he has left (who also happen to be in high places) get fed up with him as much as the British general public is.

Reply 65

Stalin

A threat to whom? The EU and UN didn't believe so, certainly not enough of a threat to go to war with.

How much worse for who? I'm pretty sure, sitting on your island, you wouldn't have been affected by Saddam. Stop kidding yourself, we're not talking about the new Hitler here.

Don't be so naive, these Iraqi polls are done inside the Green Zone, by the men who'll be hanging from lamp-posts as soon as the US leaves. The vast majority of Iraqis now hate the US and UK even more than they previously did.

A threat to everyone. For ***** sake. Saddam hated the UK and the US, and if we let him carry on as he was, there was a strong possibility that he would build WMDs and just as strong a possibility that we'd be the target of them.

Secondly, I'll start with lol, Godwin's law. And I'm pretty damn sure that an Iraqi missile launched at the UK would have a pretty serious impact on me, no?

And thirdly, you know that how?

Seriously, you seem to think that we've made Iraq worse by removing Saddam, and I'd go as far to say as you sound like you're on the opposite side of the fence. Wake up, we went to war because it was either now under our own terms, or maybe ten years down the line when we have to retaliate. Yet you for some reason feel we'd be better off leaving him to it? What, you think the man who was part of the gassing of 5000 kurds and the man who starved his own people wouldn't launch a missile at us if he had the capability?

Reply 66

thunder_chunky

Yeah.
He always finds a way out. I wish just once he would have that smile wiped off his face.

Not in a violent way, just that he's screwed over or stabbed in the back by one of his colleagues or something so that the few friends he has left (who also happen to be in high places) get fed up with him as much as the British general public is.

I don't think the general british public realise/actually know why they are fed up with him? British troops have died, yes. But who knows how many lives may have been saved.

Reply 67

cowsforsale

15

There were so many annoying students outside our uni who were waving "jail blair" bs leaflets and whatnot.

Load of tosh.

Iraq were a threat to it's own people as well as to other nations so overthrowing that totalitarian government was the right decision.

Reply 68

cowsforsale

There were so many annoying students outside our uni who were waving "jail blair" bs leaflets and whatnot.

Load of tosh.

Iraq were a threat and overthrowing that government was the right decision.

Agreed - you at UCL or Imperial? Or somewhere else?

Reply 69

thunder_chunky

19

MrChem

I don't think the general british public realise/actually know why they are fed up with him? British troops have died, yes. But who knows how many lives may have been saved.

I think many do actually know. People were unsure to begin with, and then as time went on they got more and more suspicious of Blair, trusting him less and less.

Quite right too.

Now pretty much anyone who is clued into the situation has Blair clocked as a complete ****.

Quite rightly so.

Reply 70

cowsforsale

15

MrChem

Agreed - you at UCL or Imperial? Or somewhere else?

glasgow

Reply 71

MrChem

A threat to everyone. For ***** sake. Saddam hated the UK and the US, and if we let him carry on as he was, there was a strong possibility that he would build WMDs and just as strong a possibility that we'd be the target of them.

Secondly, I'll start with lol, Godwin's law. And I'm pretty damn sure that an Iraqi missile launched at the UK would have a pretty serious impact on me, no?

A missile launched from Iraq couldn't hit the UK as it's too far away, nice try though.

Seriously, you seem to think that we've made Iraq worse by removing Saddam, and I'd go as far to say as you sound like you're on the opposite side of the fence. Wake up, we went to war because it was either now under our own terms, or maybe ten years down the line when we have to retaliate. Yet you for some reason feel we'd be better off leaving him to it? What, you think the man who was part of the gassing of 5000 kurds and the man who starved his own people wouldn't launch a missile at us if he had the capability?

Why on earth would Saddam launch a missile at the UK even if he had the capabilites? Had he attempted to, the UK would retaliate with 100 times more force, thus ending his reign and that of his successor, which would've most likely been his son.

The EU and UN both condemned the operation, as did many countries around the world, notably China, even though their government made a grossly astronomical fat profit from both of the wars.

All of the Arab League countries with the exception of Kuwait condemned the war, and hear this, Iran also condemned it, a country which went to war with Iraq some 20 odd years prior to the invasion.

Reply 72

cowsforsale

glasgow

Oh right, I thought you meant in London near the QE2 center :rolleyes:

Stalin

A missile launched from Iraq couldn't hit the UK as it's too far away, nice try though.

He had the potential capability of building one that could. And after 9/11 the US and the UK viewed risk differently. And afterwards, allowing Saddam the chance to possibly build WMDs was just too big a risk.

Do you honestly believe we should have just ignored Saddam and let him do what he wanted?

Reply 73

MrChem

He had the potential capability of building one that could. And after 9/11 the US and the UK viewed risk differently. And afterwards, allowing Saddam the chance to possibly build WMDs was just too big a risk.

Do you honestly believe we should have just ignored Saddam and let him do what he wanted?

If this 'risk' was so great then why didn't the EU or the UN intervene?

The fact that 3/5 of the UN Security Council members were firmly against an invasion shows how much of a threat he actually posed.

Reply 74

thunder_chunky

19

Stalin

A missile launched from Iraq couldn't hit the UK as it's too far away, nice try though.

Perhaps, however he might have gone back to lobbing missiles at Israel, and that didn't go down the first time.

So that really could have kicked up a storm.

Might not be relevant, just saying...

Reply 75

Stalin

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, the argument itself is preposterous. In this day and age, we don't go around 'fixing' countries without the approval of other countries.

The UN said no as did the EU.

Right, this seems to be your main point so I'll ignore the rest of the babble and deal with something we can debate on.

Let assume for one moment that you are the PM (I know, a frightful thought) and you have received intelligence pointing towards a known dictatorial bully having WMDs. What do you do?

Do you simply wait around for other countries and have a little discussion with them (because, like you said, our decisions are subject to the approval of others) OR take decisive action before it's too late?

Reply 76

MrChem

Agreed - you at UCL or Imperial? Or somewhere else?

Yeah, they were all over KCL too. The whole "Bliar" thing is soo dull. I was thinking '**** off' lol

Reply 77

thunder_chunky

Perhaps, however he might have gone back to lobbing missiles at Israel, and that didn't go down the first time.

So that really could have kicked up a storm.

Might not be relevant, just saying...

No, no, no .. we may have missiles that can reach the outer atmospheres of Earth, but one that can reach the UK is impossible, or at least according to the TSR member called "Stalin" ...

Reply 78

Lord Hysteria

Right, this seems to be your main point so I'll ignore the rest of the babble and deal with something we can debate on.

Let assume for one moment that you are the PM (I know, a frightful thought) and you have received intelligence pointing towards a known dictatorial bully having WMDs. What do you do?

Do you simply wait around for other countries and have a little discussion with them (because, like you said, our decisions are subject to the approval of others) OR take decisive action before it's too late?

I'd have put together a team of experts and asked them for advice on nuclear weapons and Iraq, I'd then have my intelligence investigate the situation further. If my experts then came back to me and told me that there was a possibility that Saddam was building WMDs or than he had WMDs then I would immediately hold a meeting with the countries that form the UN Security Council, I'd also raise the issue in the EU, NATO and the UN. From there I'd await their verdict and unless I have the backing of all 3 I would not, and I repeat, not send young men and women to die in Iraq.

Reply 79