Cheney and His Ilk Wrong on Iraq

by Lurker Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:13 am

[img]

Cheney and His Ilk Wrong on Iraq Bernie14

[/img]

by Cass Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:59 am

absolutely. I didn't have my husband for 3 years, lots of our friends were in the same situation, we lost friends and his colleagues and some lost limbs....

and for fucking what?

the above as well as Tony Blair and Dubbya should be tried for war crimes just like the Nazis, the Japanese and the leaders from the Bosnia conflict and their assests seized and given to veterans and the families of those who died and their assess slung in jail.

by scrat Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:52 am

Cass wrote:absolutely. I didn't have my husband for 3 years, lots of our friends were in the same situation, we lost friends and his colleagues and some lost limbs....

and for fucking what?

the above as well as Tony Blair and Dubbya should be tried for war crimes just like the Nazis, the Japanese and the leaders from the Bosnia conflict and their assests seized and given to veterans and the families of those who died and their assess slung in jail.

I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:56 am

scrat wrote:
Cass wrote:absolutely. I didn't have my husband for 3 years, lots of our friends were in the same situation, we lost friends and his colleagues and some lost limbs....

and for fucking what?

the above as well as Tony Blair and Dubbya should be tried for war crimes just like the Nazis, the Japanese and the leaders from the Bosnia conflict and their assests seized and given to veterans and the families of those who died and their assess slung in jail.
I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

That is ridiculous Saddam was a decent leader for that area at least he was secular and had created a modern nation. the way they would have got WMDs is by designing and building their own. They had a strong economy, excellent education system and public hospitals. The ONLY thing Saddam actually did that is worthy of historical note is Employ the Most teachers in a single policy, he employed 50,000 teachers to teach every man woman and child to read, And Considering how women are treated in the neighboring state of Iran Sad

Any cruelty is far eclipsed by someone else (history is full of example that make Saddam look like a pussy cat)

He Gassed the Kurds, the same group that are called terrorists in both Iran and Turkey, and is the fault of England and France post WW1 when they split the Ottoman empire how they wanted it and divided the Kurdish lands between Turkey Iran and Iraq.

The World would have been far better off IF Saddam was still there because he was literally at the for front and head enemy of Islamic Fundamentalist movements through the region. Now he is gone there is no Strong Secular leader in the Middle east. pale

How can he be linked with Al queda when he Literally fought against them and they tried to assassinate him multiple times, Saddam's crimes/collateral damage is still very little compared to what the USA has done in fighting Al queda. Rolling Eyes

It is Like the Japanese Proverb
To defeat a devil you must become a devil

by nicko Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:09 am

Got to agree with you there Veya,Saddam was no angel and responsible for some terrible atrocities but we should have left him alone. The lesser of two evils?

by scrat Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:52 am

veya_victaous wrote:
scrat wrote:
I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

That is ridiculous Saddam was a decent leader for that area at least he was secular and had created a modern nation. the way they would have got WMDs is by designing and building their own. They had a strong economy, excellent education system and public hospitals. The ONLY thing Saddam actually did that is worthy of historical note is Employ the Most teachers in a single policy, he employed 50,000 teachers to teach every man woman and child to read, And Considering how women are treated in the neighboring state of Iran    Any cruelty is far eclipsed by someone else (history is full of example that make Saddam look like a pussy cat)

He Gassed the Kurds, the same group that are called terrorists in both Iran and Turkey, and is the fault of England and France post WW1 when they split the Ottoman empire how they wanted it and divided the Kurdish lands between Turkey Iran and Iraq.

The World would have been far better off IF Saddam was still there because he was literally at the for front and head enemy of Islamic Fundamentalist movements through the region. Now he is gone there is no Strong Secular leader in the Middle east.
How can he be linked with Al queda when he Literally fought against them and they tried to assassinate him multiple times, Saddam's crimes/collateral damage is still very little compared to what the USA has done in fighting Al queda.

It is Like the Japanese Proverb
To defeat a devil you must become a devil

Indeed, although you could equally blame Britain and France for WW2 as the financial cost and humiliation of Germany led to Hitler, such are the complexities of war.

I don't think there are any circumstances in which you can allow, a known reoffender access to WMDs.

For me it's as simple as that, and as for your strong secular leader not linked to Al Queda, this might have been true at that time, however it is interesting to note that ISIS "liberated" Tikrit recently, and when they're not fighting each other, ISIS are now linked to Al Queda.

In my opinion the idea that Sadman would not of pressed the button in retaliation for the very existence of Iran, Kuwait, Israel, Egypt etc etc, would have been a grave mistake, however thankfully the great minds of the time decided to take the chap out and we're left with the now, which is what must be dealt with.

Ps well done to the socceroos, it's good to see the flag of Blighty flying in the sun and watching our ex convicts sweat it out but put up a good show, our colonialists are also performing well, let's hope the motherland does well today.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:24 pm

There were no WMD's, And we had Iraq under lock down with enforced no fly zones, constant surveillance and sanctions.

So they would not have get any WMD's either.

There were no terrorists in Iraq then either.

Nobody can honestly say Iraq is or has been better since the war and removal of Saddam Hussain.

Also we were backing him against iran.

by Guest Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:52 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
scrat wrote:
I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

That is ridiculous Saddam was a decent leader for that area at least he was secular and had created a modern nation. the way they would have got WMDs is by designing and building their own. They had a strong economy, excellent education system and public hospitals. The ONLY thing Saddam actually did that is worthy of historical note is Employ the Most teachers in a single policy, he employed 50,000 teachers to teach every man woman and child to read, And Considering how women are treated in the neighboring state of Iran    Any cruelty is far eclipsed by someone else (history is full of example that make Saddam look like a pussy cat)

He Gassed the Kurds, the same group that are called terrorists in both Iran and Turkey, and is the fault of England and France post WW1 when they split the Ottoman empire how they wanted it and divided the Kurdish lands between Turkey Iran and Iraq.

The World would have been far better off IF Saddam was still there because he was literally at the for front and head enemy of Islamic Fundamentalist movements through the region. Now he is gone there is no Strong Secular leader in the Middle east.
How can he be linked with Al queda when he Literally fought against them and they tried to assassinate him multiple times, Saddam's crimes/collateral damage is still very little compared to what the USA has done in fighting Al queda.

It is Like the Japanese Proverb
To defeat a devil you must become a devil

presumably you support assad as well then??

by gerber Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:48 pm

Assad might not be the most moderate of nicest of leaders, but he had ruled over a stable country. As had Saddam and gordon bennet, Mubarak and Ghadaffi.

Since they are outed or attempts to remove them the Middle east is in turmoil.

Sometimes is better to keep your enemy as your good friend

by Cass Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:58 pm

bull cookies scrat.....there is a world of difference in signing up to defend your country or any other country that is under attack illegally - gulf war - or being used as a battering ram cause you no longer like a dictator /leader (whom you used to support for your own purposes) because you had one of the worlds most awful terrorist events happen on your watch while ignoring the real threat and you don't want to look like a dumbass anymore and besides you are gonna finish the job your evil cronies didn't di the first time round with your daddy.

^gerbs totally agree

by gerber Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:01 pm

Thanks Cass

by Original Quill Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:12 pm

scrat wrote:
Cass wrote:absolutely. I didn't have my husband for 3 years, lots of our friends were in the same situation, we lost friends and his colleagues and some lost limbs....

and for fucking what?

the above as well as Tony Blair and Dubbya should be tried for war crimes just like the Nazis, the Japanese and the leaders from the Bosnia conflict and their assests seized and given to veterans and the families of those who died and their assess slung in jail.

I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

Your point would be much better taken if Saddam did have WMDs. The fact is that the WMD argument was a ruse, as were alleged connections to terrorists and/or '9/11,' employed to suck both America and Britain into a self-serving ego war. The 2003 war against Iraq was a test case for the Neo-Cons, whose thesis was that America was now Rome--an empire without peer. The USSR was gone, and Russia was reduced to a regional power. American exceptionalism was the order of the day:

James Q. Wilson wrote:WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH said that America hopes to spread democracy to all of the world, he was echoing a sentiment many people support. Though Americans do not put "extending democracy" near the top of their list of foreign policy objectives (preventing terrorism is their chief goal), few would deny that if popular rule is extended it would improve lives around the world.

Democracy, of course, means rule by the people. But the devil is in the details. By one count, the number of democracies quintupled in the second half of the twentieth century, but there are freedom-loving and freedom-disdaining democracies. Fareed Zakaria calls the latter "illiberal democracies." Among them are Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

The number of democratic regimes has grown rapidly in the last several decades, but what has grown is not like American-style democracy. Though most democracies have certain things in common--popular elections, the rule of law, and rights for minorities--we should never suppose that what we hope will appear in the Middle East and elsewhere will look like American government any more than Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan, or Turkey look like us. Recall that American democracy contains some strikingly undemocratic features, such as an Electoral College, two senators for each state regardless of state populations, and an independent judiciary.

America differs from other democratic nations in many ways, some material and some mental. It has a more rapidly growing economy than most of Europe and deeper sense of patriotism than almost any other country with popular rule. A recent survey of 91,000 people in 50 nations, conducted by the Pew Research Center and reported on by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes, outlines our political culture and shows how different it is from that in most other democracies.

Americans identify more strongly with their own country than do people in many affluent democracies. While 71 percent of Americans say they are "very proud" to be in America, only 38 percent of the French and 21 percent of the Germans and the Japanese say they are proud to live in their countries. And Americans are much more committed to individualism than are people elsewhere. Only one-third of Americans, but two-thirds of Germans and Italians, think that success in life is determined by forces outside their own control. This message is one that Americans wish to transmit to their children: 60 percent say that children should be taught the value of hard work, but only one-third of the British and Italians and one-fifth of the Germans agree. Over half of all Americans think that economic competition is good because it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas; only one-third of French and Spanish people agree. Americans would like their views to spread throughout the world: over three-fourths said this was a good idea, compared to only one-fourth of the people in France, Germany, and Italy and one-third of those in Great Britain.

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville discussed American exceptionalism in Democracy in America, and he is still correct. There was then and there continues now to be in this country a remarkable commitment to liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and laissez-faire values. He gave three explanations for this state of affairs: we came to occupy a vast, largely empty, and isolated continent; we have benefited from a legal system that involves federalism and an independent judiciary; and we have embraced certain "habits of the heart" that were profoundly shaped by our religious tradition. Of these, Tocqueville rightly said that our customs were more important than our laws and our laws more important than our geography. What is remarkable today is that a vast nation of around 300 million people still share views once held by a few million crowded along the Eastern seaboard.

http://spectator.org/articles/46395/american-exceptionalism

America was the first...the first democracy...the first to break the old chains of Europe...the first to find freedom...America ushered in the New Era of prosperity and human happiness. This was the creed of the New-Cons, fathered by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss.

The Iraq war was not a pure case...Cheney and Rumsfeld were from the Reagan anti-communist sentiment; Bush thought he was vindicating his father; there was a lot of greed and croneyism mixed in there; and of course oil. But Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Paul Bremer were the architects of a new movement and philosophy, that was to be beta-tested in Iraq.

The first thing to note is, if Iraq was a test for a new philosophy, it was not a reaction...it was a first strike effort. The order of the day was, preemptive strike. As Captain Ramius said: "A ship that had but one purpose."

So let's get one thing straight: WMDs were never an issue in Iraq. That was a lie planted in order to justify the great test case for neoconservatism. When the US elected GWB, it put into place the mad scientists, who wasted $17-billion of our money, 4,500 American lives and hundreds of thousands of others, and commenced a whole new era.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There were no WMD's, And we had Iraq under lock down with enforced no fly zones, constant surveillance and sanctions.

So they would not have get any WMD's either.

There were no terrorists in Iraq then either.

Nobody can honestly say Iraq is or has been better since the war and removal of Saddam Hussain.

Also we were backing him against iran.

Actually there were terrorists in Iraq, but they were fighting Saddam. A lot of the rhetoric to the tune of "Saddam kills his own people" was actually around what he did to Kurdish separatists and al Qaeda fighters trying to take down his regime.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:18 pm

Assad presided over a stable secular and successful country and protected the religious minorities there.
Protected them from......???
Any guesses...???

by Original Quill Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Assad presided over a stable secular and successful country and protected the religious minorities there.
Protected them from......???
Any guesses...???

The British?

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:54 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
scrat wrote:
I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

That is ridiculous Saddam was a decent leader for that area at least he was secular and had created a modern nation. the way they would have got WMDs is by designing and building their own. They had a strong economy, excellent education system and public hospitals. The ONLY thing Saddam actually did that is worthy of historical note is Employ the Most teachers in a single policy, he employed 50,000 teachers to teach every man woman and child to read, And Considering how women are treated in the neighboring state of Iran    Any cruelty is far eclipsed by someone else (history is full of example that make Saddam look like a pussy cat)

He Gassed the Kurds, the same group that are called terrorists in both Iran and Turkey, and is the fault of England and France post WW1 when they split the Ottoman empire how they wanted it and divided the Kurdish lands between Turkey Iran and Iraq.

The World would have been far better off IF Saddam was still there because he was literally at the for front and head enemy of Islamic Fundamentalist movements through the region. Now he is gone there is no Strong Secular leader in the Middle east.
How can he be linked with Al queda when he Literally fought against them and they tried to assassinate him multiple times, Saddam's crimes/collateral damage is still very little compared to what the USA has done in fighting Al queda.

It is Like the Japanese Proverb
To defeat a devil you must become a devil

presumably you support assad as well then??

Over ISIS yes, but If secular Rebels were to get up I would support them... it's not black and white there are shades of Grey and often it is Like Nicko Said you're just picking the lesser of 2 evils Neutral

by gerber Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:11 am

Difficult to fing=d to whom I am agreing at this time of night. We only have candles to see by. Lecci cut off years ago for refusing to have a wind farm tele tubbie house in my garden.

Anyhows..................

Saddam had he still been in situ.................. we would not be discussing the finer points of who did what to who and who should to what to who to stop the who doing the what to whoever.

On a more sombre note. Saddam was executed, and quickly by the forces that we as a nation are part of - had he been imprisoned would he be now released to calm the situation and regain control over the region................

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:39 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Assad presided over a stable secular and successful country and protected the religious minorities there.
Protected them from......???
Any guesses...???
The British?

No, protected from Muslims.

And The religious minorities there and Iraq and all over the Muslim countries still need protecting from Muslims........ some of them posing the danger are 'British'.........'British' Muslims!!!

Great isn't it!?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:42 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Assad presided over a stable secular and successful country and protected the religious minorities there.
Protected them from......???
Any guesses...???
The British?

No, protected from Muslims.

And The religious minorities there and Iraq and all over the Muslim countries still need protecting from Muslims........ some of them posing the danger are 'British'.........'British' Muslims!!!

Great isn't it!?

Christian and Jewish communities thrived for centuries in predominantly Muslim countries, Tommy -- this is political and you should be smart enough to see that.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:04 am

I agree, gerbs. There's a lot of dimensions to this...not dichotomous like Smels and Tommy see it. First, the British cut up the whole Middle East all backasswards, even before WWI; the result was that these countries were run by stongmen--gangsters, really. One by one, beginning with the Shah, they were ousted and, because it was the one organization that could stand up, they were replaced by religious leaders.

Second, the Palestinian conflict came along, and that gave rise to a militant Islamist movement. Here's where we agree: Saddam, as bad as he was, held the whole ensemble together...checking the militants (al Qaeda among them) and opposing Iran. It held together even though it was a kind of suspended disequilibrium.

So, third, the US had to come along and fook it all up. Why? Well, they all had their motives, but the primary one that held the factions in the US together was the Neo-Con movement. We would not have gone to war solely to vindicate Bush's father. The Reaganites did not have sufficient pull or persuasion. But when they were all wrapped up with legitimacy by the Neo-Con doctrine, a perfect fusion took place.

Saddam's balance was toppled, and Libya, Syria and Egypt have followed in the arab spring. Each time the rebels gained strength, and at the point of Syria they coalesced. Iraq was vulnerable because most of the rebels were Sunni and Iraq was the only Shiite state besides Iran.

Now, today, what will happen at the end of all these civil wars? Some, like Egypt, will gravitate toward theocracy, as Iran has done. Others? Who knows...when the energy of these rebellions dissipate, will they too go for a theocracy? Or will they go for another strongman? Will the military take over? I think democracy has a tough row to hoe with theocracy, particularly away from the urban areas. Democracy doesn't flourish in the face of a dominate force, as we saw with the American Revolution. We almost didn't make it, save that the Brits had other fish to fry elsewhere.

So, here we have the perfect storm. Who is to blame? The British? The strongmen? The US and the Neo-Cons? It's not a dichotomous situation. It is what it is.

Back in 2008 I predicted this civil war. People can blame Obama, or they can blame the Lefties today...but it is what it is. As soon as you pulled the (power) plug in the bathtub, this was going to happen.

It is what it is. The best that can be said is that had we kept Saddam and the other strongmen in place until we had something better set up, we might have made the transition smoother. But a Republican was in power, and you know the huge hard-on they have for blazing guns and global war.

Indeed, had the US Supreme Court not stolen the 2000 presidential election away from the Democrats, the transition would no doubt have been smoother. Everyone and the UN advocated a smooth ride. Democrats were more patient. It was Republicans with their hard-ons and love of war that gave us this mess.

I would hazard a guess that not withstanding the Blair Labour lap dogging...Britain today falls along the same lines. Tories love war. Labour and Liberals are more moderate.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:12 am

Tommy Monk wrote:There were no WMD's, And we had Iraq under lock down with enforced no fly zones, constant surveillance and sanctions.

So they would not have get any WMD's either.

There were no terrorists in Iraq then either.

Nobody can honestly say Iraq is or has been better since the war and removal of Saddam Hussain.

Also we were backing him against iran.

We certainly were Tommy as the Arms to Iraq scandal showed. Government ministers right up to Thatcher lying and trying to prosecute business men for doing something they had secretly authorised.

The Scott Report should have gone further by recommending that they all be dragged into court and prosecuted.

After spending more than two years investigating Britain's sale of military equipment to Iraq before the Persian Gulf war, an independent judicial panel has found that leaders of the governing Conservative Party misled the public and Parliament about its arms-sales policies, although unknowingly in some cases.

The panel's draft report, portions of which were leaked to the British media over the last two days, said officials right up to Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister at the time, continued to insist that they were strictly adhering to a policy of not selling any equipment that could have military applications to either Iran or Iraq in the late 1980's even as the Government was permitting some sales to Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/08/world/tory-leaders-misled-parliament-on-iraq-arms-sales-panel-finds.html?pagewanted=1

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:05 pm

Quill, you have waffled a lot there but not told me anything I don't already know.

Don't forget it was our labour party min took us into the Iraq war on pure lies and spin, (lies and spin are what they are known for over here!).

Iron brain can't stand this fact so has to try to find some little diversion to try to put blame on Tories somehow again I see....

Pathetic!

by Original Quill Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:41 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, you have waffled a lot there but not told me anything I don't already know.

So you know it's not merely Muslim vs. non-Muslim. I'm pleased...I expect we'll hear no more of that nonsense.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:24 pm

Don't know what that comment has to do with me...???

Muslims will happily persecute and kill non Muslims regardless of whether they are busy killing each other or not.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, you have waffled a lot there but not told me anything I don't already know.

Don't forget it was our labour party min took us into the Iraq war on pure lies and spin, (lies and spin are what they are known for over here!).

Iron brain can't stand this fact so has to try to find some little diversion to try to put blame on Tories somehow again I see....

Pathetic!

Some of the equipment that was exported was used against the coalition forces in the Gulf war. Equipment that was secretly authorised for export by Thatcher's government but they got caught out and tried to lie their way out of it. And those involved in trying to stitch up British businessmen and pin the blame on them only agreed to give evidence on condition that they would be granted immunity from prosecution.

It's all about the deceipt, the lying and the corruption but you can only see it as something that just Blair would do - even though it was the Tories that provided all the votes that were necessary to go to war.

Yes, it is pathetic but I don't see any of this equal venom that you claim to have for both Labour and the Tories.

Where is it?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:55 pm

Labour govt provided all The lies and spin that The decision was taken on....

I didn't believe them myself and was against the

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Labour govt provided all The lies and spin that The decision was taken on....

I didn't believe them myself and was against the

Saddam must be ousted now, says Duncan Smith.

And that was before any dossier was brought up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Call for Tories to explain Iraq support

http://www.danrogerson.org/2010/01/31/call-for-tories-to-explain-iraq-support/

139 Labour MPs, every single LinDem and every Scottish Nationalist didn't believe the case for war had been made and voted to stop it but almost every single Tory voted to defeat it,,,,,,explain that?

So where's this equal venom that you have? Doesn't it apply to the Tories for the lies and deceipt over the Iraq scandal in exporting arms in secret and then lying about it?
Doesn't it apply to those that were all in favour of a war before any dossier appeared?

You're a chancer Tommy.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:37 am

Come off it iron brain, labour were in govt, they were the instigators here, Duncan smith is just one MP.

Is that all you got????

And more or 'it was the Tories wot done it' rubbish.....

And try and keep it current..... your own link said the report showed that a lot of it they didn't know about.... and do You really expect me to start condemning relatively minor stuff from 25 years ago compared to the labour govt leading us into an illegal war with a catalogue of lies from 10 years ago???

Are you also going to list all The dodgy arms sales that happened during the last 13 years of labour govt...???

Thought not....

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:52 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Come off it iron brain, labour were in govt, they were the instigators here, Duncan smith is just one MP.

Is that all you got????

And more or 'it was the Tories wot done it' rubbish.....

And try and keep it current..... your own link said the report showed that a lot of it they didn't know about.... and do You really expect me to start condemning relatively minor stuff from 25 years ago compared to the labour govt leading us into an illegal war with a catalogue of lies from 10 years ago???

Are you also going to list all The dodgy arms sales that happened during the last 13 years of labour govt...???

Thought not....

You just can't bring yourself to show this equal venom that you have and condemn the lies and the deceipt that happened with the Tories secretly exporting arms to Iraq and lying about can you? Says it all.

Go on then. Give me a list of all the dodgy arms deals that happened under the last Labour government because I'd like to see it.

As for the vote on the decision to go to war with Iraq. You said you didn't believe that there was enough evidence to support the case for war so actually you are right there in supporting the 139 Labour MPs, all the LibDems and all the Scottish Nationalists and against the Tories who voted almost to a man to defeat the amendment that tried to stop it.

See, your supporting what I'm saying - you just didn't realise it.

So where is the equal venon?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:16 am

Firstly your own link said they didn't know about much of it.

Secondly it was over 25 years ago and not relevant to the thread or the issues of today.

Thirdly it is a drop in the ocean compared to the labour led illegal war into Iraq based purely on lies and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and creating the complete cluster fuck we are faced with now.

Fourth, the house was led in their vote by these completely bogus lies told by labour.

They are to blame.

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:37 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Firstly your own link said they didn't know about much of it.

Secondly it was over 25 years ago and not relevant to the thread or the issues of today.

Thirdly it is a drop in the ocean compared to the labour led illegal war into Iraq based purely on lies and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and creating the complete cluster fuck we are faced with now.

Fourth, the house was led in their vote by these completely bogus lies told by labour.

They are to blame.

I knew you couldn't do it Tommy. Even though you supported the Labour amendment to stop the war you just can't condemn the MPs that defeated it - including almost every Tory. And you still haven't explained why so many Laboour MPs and LibDems didn't think there was enough evidence but the Tories did. And you didn't really read the links I gave you, did you? So why don't you spend some time and do that now and come back to me with your comments?

And the lies of the Tories in Matrix Churchill case in the lead up to the first Gulf war can't even winkle out just a little bit condemnation from you with this equal venom that you claim to have.

The Tories were in it up to their necks and you know it and I've provided you with enough evidence to show that they were all for it even before any dossier was produced.

You're a 24 carat gold chancer and I'm going to leave you with words of Michael Gove...

I love Tony he said....

But it was on 25 March, five days after the invasion started, that his praise of Blair tips over into a gushing eulogy entitled “I can’t fight my feelings any more: I love Tony”. After the subheading “Blair’s outbreak of courage deserves the respect of natural conservatives”, the piece begins: “You could call it the Elizabeth Bennett moment. It’s what Isolde felt when she fell into Tristan’s arms. It’s the point you reach when you give up fighting your feelings, abandon the antipathy bred into your bones, and admit that you were wrong about the man. By God, it’s still hard to write this, but I’m afraid I’ve got to be honest. Tony Blair is proving an outstanding Prime Minister at the moment”. After a few paragraphs on other issues on which Blair is courting discontent within the Labour Party, Gove turns to Iraq and writes:

“It is over Iraq that he is in the greatest difficulty politically. All because, as a Labour Prime Minister, he’s behaving like a true Thatcherite. Indeed, he’s braver in some respects than Maggie was. The Falklands war took courage. But Thatcher had most of the country, and her party, behind her. In dealing with the Iraq crisis, Mr Blair has neither…Mr Blair’s policy…has the merit of genuine moral force….My admiration for the Prime Minister’s bravery in making the case is, I have to add, only increased when I listen to the sneering condescension with which broadcasters treat Government policy on Iraq…It may seem a trifle rich of me, as someone who’s enjoyed giving Mr Blair a good kicking, to object when the boot is being driven home on another foot. But there’s a difference between taking on a leader with a 93 per cent approval rating when he’s steering to the sound of applause, and piling in against a Prime Minister who’s grown into a conviction politician, risking public approval, party support and a cosy relationship with Europe in order to confront tyranny.”

Got the list of the dodgy deals yet? If not then get it ready for me and I'll look it over in the morning together with you comments on the articles I have kindly provided for you.

CYA tomorrow. Smile

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:10 am

You still don't get it do you...???

The labour govt made the case for the Iraq war.

They provided the 'evidence' that the house made their decisions on.

This was all a pack of lies!!!!

So who is to blame...????

The people who lied and misled the whole house????

Or the people who voted for the war after being misled into believing the lies they were fed by the labour govt...???

it's not a case of me supporting the amendment, it is a case of being against the whole proposal for the war based on the lies that labour gave in the first place!

Maybe you Can tell the whole story and stop just being selective in your points as usual....

Why don't you tell us about the original proposal for the war, what 'evidence' it was based on and what the voting was by all MPs then.????

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:26 am

You might also enjoy reading this.....

http://www.variant.org.uk/13texts/Phil_England.html

And after your denials about UK slipping down education tables under labour......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10486887/UK-pupils-languish-in-international-league-tables.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10489602/OECD-education-report-UK-schools-treading-water-as-Far-East-surges-ahead.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/going-backwards-uk-literacy-and-numeracy-standards-slip-down-international-rankings-8979588.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517834/Britains-stagnating-schools-UK-teenagers-slip-world-league-maths-science-reading.html

by Irn Bru Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You still don't get it do you...???

The labour govt made the case for the Iraq war.

They provided the 'evidence' that the house made their decisions on.

This was all a pack of lies!!!!

So who is to blame...????

The people who lied and misled the whole house????

Or the people who voted for the war after being misled into believing the lies they were fed by the labour govt...???

it's not a case of me supporting the amendment, it is a case of being against the whole proposal for the war based on the lies that labour gave in the first place!

Maybe you Can tell the whole story and stop just being selective in your points as usual....

Why don't you tell us about the original proposal for the war, what 'evidence' it was based on and what the voting was by all MPs then.????

Here's what was presented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf

Here's the vote on the amendment to stop the war.

Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected — 18 Mar 2003 at 21:15

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117

Check the numbers and you will see that it was the Tory votes that carried the day and defeated the amendment to stop it - an amendment supported by 139 Labour MPS, every single LibDem and every single Nationalists. So if they thought there wasn't enough evidence to support the war why didn't all those Tories think that as well? Can you explain that? Answer is that they were well up for it and as Cameron said the dosier was only one element in the decision to back the war.
And as you said you believed that there wasn't enough evidence then I'm surprised that you are only now asking to see what the evidence was.
Bottom line is that you supported the Labour amendment and that puts you against all the Tories that defeated it. Amazing huh!

Get back to me with your comments on the evidence and also the voting figures as well.

by Irn Bru Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You might also enjoy reading this.....

http://www.variant.org.uk/13texts/Phil_England.html

That's old hat and I've seen that before but what I'm asking you for is a list of the dodgy deals under Labour. What's in that was totally open and in the public domain.
On that score though the record of sales of the Hawk and armoured vehicles under the Tories was appalling. They signed off deals right through the 80s and the 90s and what was exported after 1997 was under contracts and licenses granted by the Tories. Labour should have revoked the licenses straight away instead of waiting to impose an embargo on the sale of major armanents and they should have stopped the spares as well but they never approved the sale of major equipment to Indonesia during their term.

So, have you got the list of the dodgy deals?

Tommy Monk wrote:And after your denials about UK slipping down education tables under labour......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10486887/UK-pupils-languish-in-international-league-tables.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10489602/OECD-education-report-UK-schools-treading-water-as-Far-East-surges-ahead.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/going-backwards-uk-literacy-and-numeracy-standards-slip-down-international-rankings-8979588.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517834/Britains-stagnating-schools-UK-teenagers-slip-world-league-maths-science-reading.html

I gather this is a diversion to get away from the subject in hand?

And if you were interested in continuing with this you could have just gone back and added that to the thread where we were discussing it earlier.
All you are doing is giving me more newspaper articles written using tables briefed to the media by the Education Department who have had their arse kicked for doing so. You know that because I even provided you with a copy of the letter and all the other evidence supporting the view that education standards didn't go down - even Michael Gove admitted that.
Just a diversion here isn't it Tommy - ya wee chancer you.

by scrat Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
scrat wrote:

I have to disagree Cass, America must intervene militarily in exceptional circumstances.

Sadman Insane could never be allowed access to WMDs, his regime sought every means to obtain WMDs, bragged about having WMDs and openly suggested using these WMDs on the rest of us, he fought a deadly and protracted war with his neighbour, bombed Israel to force the region into further conflict and one must never forget he gassed his own people.

Blair and Bush had no alternative, and as for your hubby that's why he signed on.

Sometimes its better for the here and now to have hawks who'll act decisively.

Your point would be much better taken if Saddam did have WMDs. The fact is that the WMD argument was a ruse, as were alleged connections to terrorists and/or '9/11,' employed to suck both America and Britain into a self-serving ego war. The 2003 war against Iraq was a test case for the Neo-Cons, whose thesis was that America was now Rome--an empire without peer. The USSR was gone, and Russia was reduced to a regional power. American exceptionalism was the order of the day:

James Q. Wilson wrote:WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH said that America hopes to spread democracy to all of the world, he was echoing a sentiment many people support. Though Americans do not put "extending democracy" near the top of their list of foreign policy objectives (preventing terrorism is their chief goal), few would deny that if popular rule is extended it would improve lives around the world.

Democracy, of course, means rule by the people. But the devil is in the details. By one count, the number of democracies quintupled in the second half of the twentieth century, but there are freedom-loving and freedom-disdaining democracies. Fareed Zakaria calls the latter "illiberal democracies." Among them are Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

The number of democratic regimes has grown rapidly in the last several decades, but what has grown is not like American-style democracy. Though most democracies have certain things in common--popular elections, the rule of law, and rights for minorities--we should never suppose that what we hope will appear in the Middle East and elsewhere will look like American government any more than Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan, or Turkey look like us. Recall that American democracy contains some strikingly undemocratic features, such as an Electoral College, two senators for each state regardless of state populations, and an independent judiciary.

America differs from other democratic nations in many ways, some material and some mental. It has a more rapidly growing economy than most of Europe and deeper sense of patriotism than almost any other country with popular rule. A recent survey of 91,000 people in 50 nations, conducted by the Pew Research Center and reported on by Andrew Kohut and Bruce Stokes, outlines our political culture and shows how different it is from that in most other democracies.

Americans identify more strongly with their own country than do people in many affluent democracies. While 71 percent of Americans say they are "very proud" to be in America, only 38 percent of the French and 21 percent of the Germans and the Japanese say they are proud to live in their countries. And Americans are much more committed to individualism than are people elsewhere. Only one-third of Americans, but two-thirds of Germans and Italians, think that success in life is determined by forces outside their own control. This message is one that Americans wish to transmit to their children: 60 percent say that children should be taught the value of hard work, but only one-third of the British and Italians and one-fifth of the Germans agree. Over half of all Americans think that economic competition is good because it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas; only one-third of French and Spanish people agree. Americans would like their views to spread throughout the world: over three-fourths said this was a good idea, compared to only one-fourth of the people in France, Germany, and Italy and one-third of those in Great Britain.

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville discussed American exceptionalism in Democracy in America, and he is still correct. There was then and there continues now to be in this country a remarkable commitment to liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and laissez-faire values. He gave three explanations for this state of affairs: we came to occupy a vast, largely empty, and isolated continent; we have benefited from a legal system that involves federalism and an independent judiciary; and we have embraced certain "habits of the heart" that were profoundly shaped by our religious tradition. Of these, Tocqueville rightly said that our customs were more important than our laws and our laws more important than our geography. What is remarkable today is that a vast nation of around 300 million people still share views once held by a few million crowded along the Eastern seaboard.

http://spectator.org/articles/46395/american-exceptionalism

America was the first...the first democracy...the first to break the old chains of Europe...the first to find freedom...America ushered in the New Era of prosperity and human happiness. This was the creed of the New-Cons, fathered by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss.

The Iraq war was not a pure case...Cheney and Rumsfeld were from the Reagan anti-communist sentiment; Bush thought he was vindicating his father; there was a lot of greed and croneyism mixed in there; and of course oil. But Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Paul Bremer were the architects of a new movement and philosophy, that was to be beta-tested in Iraq.

The first thing to note is, if Iraq was a test for a new philosophy, it was not a reaction...it was a first strike effort. The order of the day was, preemptive strike. As Captain Ramius said: "A ship that had but one purpose."

So let's get one thing straight: WMDs were never an issue in Iraq. That was a lie planted in order to justify the great test case for neoconservatism. When the US elected GWB, it put into place the mad scientists, who wasted $17-billion of our money, 4,500 American lives and hundreds of thousands of others, and commenced a whole new era.

Wow,,,Thats a lot of bluster with so little to show for it!

It has been obvious since WW2 that much of the USs wealth comes from the American war machine and the likes of haliburton etc etc who lobby congress for more snouts in the trough, and more war is the result and a massive factor that's for sure, but to ignore the reality that WMDs exist, to conclude that Israel's Mossad and Iranian vevaks were busy scouring the globe assassinating and eliminating the scientists and suppliers of WMDs for no worth!!!,,,,no chap!, even a distant wiff of possibility that WMDs were in that regimes hand, the conclusion would be a nuclear, chemical or biological nightmare which would have visited the rest of us, and so we should thank the great minds of that time for taking swift action, the consequences of which are the issues of our time.

So we can therefor conclude that the great minds of the time got it right, take the chap and his regime out, history teaches us that appeasement does nothing other than delay the inevitable.

And despite your diatribe of meaningless drivel regarding the great American Democracy whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean or what reference it has here is nothing other than bland waffle. The fact remains the democracy America preaches and sometimes practices is a democracy of capitalism, on their terms, exactly as it has been throughout history. and whether us Brits like it or not we're linked to America till death us do part.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:33 am

Take it or leave it.

by scrat Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:Take it or leave it.

Mmmm, I'll take the fact that US senators are corrupted by arms manufacturers and temper it with the reality, which is a megalomaniac cannot be allowed access to WMDs.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:32 pm

scrat wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Take it or leave it.
Mmmm, I'll take the fact that US senators are corrupted by arms manufacturers and temper it with the reality, which is a megalomaniac cannot be allowed access to WMDs.

Is that enough? Isn't there more to be done? The Republican politicians are the ones who duped the people, Brit and American, into believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, when there were none. That maneuver funneled the stampede right into the place where the arms manufacturers could profit most. Do you want to be duped like that again?

Or would you rather step back, and take into account the whole ugly picture, and begin to do something about it? Personally, for me throwing up the hands and saying, That's it, the arms dealers win...is somehow inadequate. I don't think it's enough.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:13 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:You still don't get it do you...???
The labour govt made the case for the Iraq war.
They provided the 'evidence' that the house made their decisions on.
This was all a pack of lies!!!!
So who is to blame...????
The people who lied and misled the whole house????
Or the people who voted for the war after being misled into believing the lies they were fed by the labour govt...???
it's not a case of me supporting the amendment, it is a case of being against the whole proposal for the war based on the lies that labour gave in the first place!
Maybe you Can tell the whole story and stop just being selective in your points as usual....
Why don't you tell us about the original proposal for the war, what 'evidence' it was based on and what the voting was by all MPs then.????
Here's what was presented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf
Here's the vote on the amendment to stop the war.
Iraq — Case for war not established — rejected — 18 Mar 2003 at 21:15
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117
Check the numbers and you will see that it was the Tory votes that carried the day and defeated the amendment to stop it - an amendment supported by 139 Labour MPS, every single LibDem and every single Nationalists. So if they thought there wasn't enough evidence to support the war why didn't all those Tories think that as well? Can you explain that? Answer is that they were well up for it and as Cameron said the dosier was only one element in the decision to back the war.
And as you said you believed that there wasn't enough evidence then I'm surprised that you are only now asking to see what the evidence was.
Bottom line is that you supported the Labour amendment and that puts you against all the Tories that defeated it. Amazing huh!
Get back to me with your comments on the evidence and also the voting figures as well.

More 'it was the Tories wot done it..' rubbish.

I was talking about the original proposal for the war being by labour govt on complete lies.

The labour govt made the case for the Iraq war.

They provided the 'evidence' that the house made their decisions on.

This was all a pack of lies!!!!

So who is to blame...????

The people who lied and misled the whole house????

Or the people who voted for the war after being misled into believing the lies they were fed by the labour govt...???

You're still being selective in your points as usual....

Why don't you tell us about the original proposal for the war, what 'evidence' it was based on and what the voting was by all MPs then.????

The later amendment to stop the war failed because by then the overwhelming majority of The house had already been convinced by the labour govts lies.

Plus the showing the slide in tables is not about any diversion, just showing you Are talking more rubbish.

Gove never said education had got better, he said schools had got better, which the buildings and facilities definately had just by having better computers alone, and he cited grade inflation that had happened under labour.

The evidence is there, all you have is a lame 'caveat' to try to twist with....

I've given you an article listing labours involvement in arms supplies, some of it is decidedly dodgy wouldn't you say???

And The biggest betrayal of parliament and The British people was the labour govt lying about Iraq and fabricating a case for war.

Kind of makes a couple of shady arms deals under the Tories nearly 20 years before seem rather insignificant don't you think...??

And where your own article says clearly that most of which they didn't even know about!!!

And which was only even brought up by You as a diversion and deflection from labour lying to start an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, hundreds of our soldiers killed or maimed, billions of pounds in costs to ttax payer and destabilised the whole region and directly led to The cluster Fuck that is happening right now!!!

by scrat Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
scrat wrote:
Mmmm, I'll take the fact that US senators are corrupted by arms manufacturers and temper it with the reality, which is a megalomaniac cannot be allowed access to WMDs.

Is that enough? Isn't there more to be done? The Republican politicians are the ones who duped the people, Brit and American, into believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, when there were none. That maneuver funneled the stampede right into the place where the arms manufacturers could profit most. Do you want to be duped like that again?

Or would you rather step back, and take into account the whole ugly picture, and begin to do something about it? Personally, for me throwing up the hands and saying, That's it, the arms dealers win...is somehow inadequate. I don't think it's enough.

What can be done?,,become politically active and push for peace and tolerance I guess?

The fixation with the belief that WMDs were not in Iraq taints your reasoning regarding the bigger picture, because it only becomes a partial truth with the application of hindsight, which was not available at that time.

Indeed it was the general consensus that due to so much activity surrounding the construction, assets and securing of WMDs, and dare I say it,,,lost and misappropriated fissile material, that the odds were shortening and any such delay could be catastrophic.

It's all well and good bleating about if only we did this or if only we did that, but you must take into consideration the political attitudes and uncertainties of the time, 911 changed America, it changed the world.

by Guest Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:33 pm

scrat wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Is that enough? Isn't there more to be done? The Republican politicians are the ones who duped the people, Brit and American, into believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, when there were none. That maneuver funneled the stampede right into the place where the arms manufacturers could profit most. Do you want to be duped like that again?

Or would you rather step back, and take into account the whole ugly picture, and begin to do something about it? Personally, for me throwing up the hands and saying, That's it, the arms dealers win...is somehow inadequate. I don't think it's enough.
What can be done?,,become politically active and push for peace and tolerance I guess?

The fixation with the belief that WMDs were not in Iraq taints your reasoning regarding the bigger picture, because it only becomes a partial truth with the application of hindsight, which was not available at that time.

Indeed it was the general consensus that due to so much activity surrounding the construction, assets and securing of WMDs, and dare I say it,,,lost and misappropriated fissile material, that the odds were shortening and any such delay could be catastrophic.

It's all well and good bleating about if only we did this or if only we did that, but you must take into consideration the political attitudes and uncertainties of the time, 911 changed America, it changed the world.

Quite correct Scrat, sadly some public opinion on WMD not being found would be the total opposite if they were there but had been missed , somebody else always thinks they have the answer , and as you say....with events like 9/11 , one shouldn't blame the government and it's Allies for being on alert and open minded to the possibility of WMD being created and stored in possible use against us,,,,

If that happened the UK Government would have been accused of doing nothing to protect us.

Some people really are ungrateful bastards, who expect our then governments and their allies to have a crystal ball and be in a position at any time, night or day, to be able to cope with whatever terrorists may or may not have in store for us.

by scrat Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:13 pm

Joy Division wrote:
scrat wrote:
What can be done?,,become politically active and push for peace and tolerance I guess?

The fixation with the belief that WMDs were not in Iraq taints your reasoning regarding the bigger picture, because it only becomes a partial truth with the application of hindsight, which was not available at that time.

Indeed it was the general consensus that due to so much activity surrounding the construction, assets and securing of WMDs, and dare I say it,,,lost and misappropriated fissile material, that the odds were shortening and any such delay could be catastrophic.

It's all well and good bleating about if only we did this or if only we did that, but you must take into consideration the political attitudes and uncertainties of the time, 911 changed America, it changed the world.

Quite correct Scrat, sadly some public opinion on WMD not being found would be the total opposite if they were there but had been missed , somebody else always thinks they have the answer , and as you say....with events like 9/11 , one shouldn't blame the government and it's Allies for being on alert and open minded to the possibility of WMD being created and stored in possible use against us,,,,

If that happened the UK Government would have been accused of doing nothing to protect us.

Some people really are ungrateful bastards, who expect our then governments and their allies to have a crystal ball and be in a position at any time, night or day, to be able to cope with whatever terrorists may or may not have in store for us.

Hi JD, I find the whole aspect of blaming everyone else but the fucker that started it somewhat distasteful, it denigrates the lives of our servicemen/women who put themselves on the ruddy line to protect our democracy and the rule of law.

Yes, arms manufacturers gain from conflict, oil deals, and snouts at the trough, however if you're mental enough to seek WMDs, brag about having them, bomb and invade neighbouring countries and gas your own people, then shit will surely follow.

by Guest Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:47 pm

Yeah, Mad Ass Hussein did leave many Kurds lying dead on the ground with his sickening attacks, if I was one of those people living in fear of an evil dictator then I would lie to think another nation(s) would come to our assistance , especially using illegal ' weaponry' against them.

And yet Scrat...too many people miss that angle...because it's not them of course.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:10 pm

scrat wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Is that enough? Isn't there more to be done? The Republican politicians are the ones who duped the people, Brit and American, into believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, when there were none. That maneuver funneled the stampede right into the place where the arms manufacturers could profit most. Do you want to be duped like that again?

Or would you rather step back, and take into account the whole ugly picture, and begin to do something about it? Personally, for me throwing up the hands and saying, That's it, the arms dealers win...is somehow inadequate. I don't think it's enough.

What can be done?,,become politically active and push for peace and tolerance I guess?

The fixation with the belief that WMDs were not in Iraq taints your reasoning regarding the bigger picture, because it only becomes a partial truth with the application of hindsight, which was not available at that time.

Indeed it was the general consensus that due to so much activity surrounding the construction, assets and securing of WMDs, and dare I say it,,,lost and misappropriated fissile material, that the odds were shortening and any such delay could be catastrophic.

Nice try, this: Go back and reconstruct the confusion, as if you somehow have an argument that it was somehow legitimate? You could justify the holocaust that way.

The confusion existed because someone deliberately seeded it. Former Vice President Richard Cheney was the architect of this massive deception:

Richard Cheney wrote:"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Husseni now has weapons of mass destruction." Aut 25, 2002.

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." March 16, 2003.

"My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators." March 16, 2003.

"In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means ot deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an extablished relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more. Nov. 5, 2003.

"What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of ation." Oct. 5, 2004.

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." June 20, 2005.

Of course it was all a lie. But you discount that, because it could've been true?? Weak, very weak. That excuse detracts from the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to deceive. These were the people with the resources of the CIA, the Pentagon and the NSA. They certainly knew they were lying. Moreover, we now know conclusively that they were deliberately lying. How you think that makes a case for 10-years of war, 4,500 American lives and over $17-trillion of debt, escapes me.

scrat wrote:It's all well and good bleating about if only we did this or if only we did that, but you must take into consideration the political attitudes and uncertainties of the time, 911 changed America, it changed the world.

9/11 was nineteen criminals, breaking criminal law, by doing extraordinary and unheard of things. The only thing different from any criminal matter was the horrific magnitude of the consequences of their deeds. There is no case for war there...there is a case for capital murder, destruction of property and hindrance with a public conveyance. But no case for war. Hence, the Bush administration lies as a make-weight argument...even they knew there was no case for war.

Now...there is definitely another criminal matter. War crimes. Causing a nation--nations--to enter into a war of genocide...against a sovereign nation, in violation of the UN Charter, against a people, and against a religion. The deliberate lies told in furtherance of that crime are definite elements of that crime.

The only question that remains for us today, is why? Karl von Clausewitz in 1873 wrote the definitive work on warfare...On War. His central thesis was that warfare is only an extension of diplomacy...political purpose. A nation must continually be aware of not only what it is doing, but why it is doing such. When it became obvious that Saddam did not have WMDs--to the people--the administration was well aware of the fact --the US government lost its legitimacy. There was no purpose. The US and the others should have withdrawn at that point. But that was in 2003, and the war went on until 2011.

Even if you argue that withdrawal was impossible at that point, is that not an argument for moving more cautiously in 2003? And when they did not, wasn't that just as much a war crime? Reckless negligence might be an excuse for an automobile accident, but it is hardly an excuse for causing a war. You don't want to go into a war with no purpose. A war with no purpose is merely the reckless taking of lives. Reckless taking of lives is a criminal act.

by scrat Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:54 pm

When did it become obvious that Saddam did not possess WMDs?

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002"

"He [Saddam Hussein] was trying to develop mass destructive weapons to include nuclear weapons,"',,,"The record is there. We found evidence of it even in Iraq. That’s a big misconception. Oh, there was no WMD, there was no nuclear program. That is false… They were clearly on a path to develop destructive weapons.",,,,, "Was that the only basis for going in? No. It never was. It was never about WMD. It was about what right does one man have to defy the entire world.

How many millions of lives have been saved simply by taking the chap out?

by Original Quill Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:13 pm

scrat wrote:When did it become obvious that Saddam did not possess WMDs?

"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002"

"He [Saddam Hussein] was trying to develop mass destructive weapons to include nuclear weapons,"',,,"The record is there. We found evidence of it even in Iraq. That’s a big misconception. Oh, there was no WMD, there was no nuclear program. That is false… They were clearly on a path to develop destructive weapons.",,,,, "Was that the only basis for going in? No. It never was. It was never about WMD. It was about what right does one man have to defy the entire world.

How many millions of lives have been saved simply by taking the chap out?

None...absolutely no lives were saved from Saddam's WMDs...there never were any. Cheney lied...and he had to powers to control everything. The CIA? The Pentagon? The NSA? They were all orchestrated to perpetuate the lie.

According to Sec. of State Colin Powell's Chief-of-Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, for preparation they were given only one week to build the lie for UN consumption:

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson wrote: "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

It takes a lot less time to build a lie, than the truth.

Wilkerson was highly critical of the intelligence organizations of the US:

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson wrote:"It becomes impossible to not just cut them, but it becomes impossible to do anything but grow them - that's how empires collapse. We've created a national security state. We've got exactly what we started out in 1947 to build and now it's giving us what its main product, which is war."

This included the CIA.

by scrat Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:49 pm

So basically you're a conspiracy theorist who has come to the conclusion that Saddam would not have used the nuclear fissile material, despite all the evidence to the contrary.,,,,,

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown

Thank goodness the great minds of the time did not listen to the likes of yourself, history teaches us that in certain situations it is better to act quickly in order to save millions of lives, millions of life's that you would have risked through the appeasement of a ruthless dictator with a passion for WMDs.

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:40 pm

Well that is a real walk in the park and you’re just stomping over ground you have stomped over already. I’m going to go through all this almost line by line so you can address each point instead of just ranting away.

Tommy Monk wrote:
More 'it was the Tories wot done it..' rubbish.

Never said it was just the Tories that did it.

Tommy Monk wrote:
I was talking about the original proposal for the war being by labour govt on complete lies. .

You were but you hadn’t even seen the evidence up until you asked me to show it to you.

Tommy Monk wrote:
The labour govt made the case for the Iraq war.

They provided the 'evidence' that the house made their decisions on.

This was all a pack of lies!!!! .

How do you know when you hadn’t even read the evidence?

Tommy Monk wrote:So who is to blame...????

Certainly not the 139 Labour MPs, all the LibDems and all the Nationalists who tried to stop it. The people you support.

Tommy Monk wrote:The people who lied and misled the whole house????

The whole House wasn’t misled. Check the votes again.

Tommy Monk wrote:Or the people who voted for the war after being misled into believing the lies they were fed by the labour govt...???

That will be the Labour MPs and all the Tories who backed the war. Remember they were all subjected to exactly the same information and the Tories even conducted their own research.
As David Cameron said the dossier was only one element in the decision to back the war

David Cameron wrote:"I look back over what I said to my constituents and the argument about weapons of mass destruction was just one of the points that I put,"

Michael Gove wrote:" “We have no alternative but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to prevent Saddam completing his drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction “Military force must be deployed to remove Saddam’s regime”.

George Osborne wrote:" It is worth reminding the House that on 18 March the House voted by a huge majority to go to war. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), I do not believe that the result of that vote would have been substantially different if we had known then what we know now. It is also worth stating in the House that the decision taken that day was right, and that those who supported it should not be defensive about the way they voted. ”.

Iain Duncan Smith wrote:" "Until the US completes its unfinished business with the Iraqi leader - preferably with European help - there can be no regional stability and the risk of further attacks on the US, and its European allies, will steadily become more grave," ”.

And just yesterday....

Iain Duncan Smith wrote:" “We have to do what we can to support the Americans. The government has said it’s not going to be doing any air strikes or putting soldiers into Iraq but I think there are lots of other things we can do to help support them – make sure they get the right spare parts and support in maintaining those kind of aircraft and equipment and also support the Americans where they need it in terms of ¬supply, et cetera.”

You're still being selective in your points as usual....

Tommy Monk wrote:Why don't you tell us about the original proposal for the war, what 'evidence' it was based on and what the voting was by all MPs then.????

I’ve already given you that, in fact I thought you had read it by now

Tommy Monk wrote:The later amendment to stop the war failed because by then the overwhelming majority of The house had already been convinced by the labour govts lies.

It failed because 139 Tories voted to defeat it by backing the government. 139 Labour MPs, every LibDem MP and every Nationalist MP voted for it – a position you support even though you hadn’t seen the evidence.

Tommy Monk wrote:Plus the showing the slide in tables is not about any diversion, just showing you Are talking more rubbish
Gove never said education had got better, he said schools had got better, which the buildings and facilities definately had just by having better computers alone, and he cited grade inflation that had happened under labour.

The evidence is there, all you have is a lame 'caveat' to try to twist with.... .

No, the tables were prepared by the Education Department and briefed to the media and they got a boot up the backside for presenting misleading data. I even showed you the letter.
And now you are just spinning what Gove meant because he went on to say

Michael Gove wrote: there are aspects of Labour’s record that I acknowledge are good and wish to build on. I am looking forward to building consensus across the House on the growth of the academies programme, for example, the growth of Teach First and the importance of improving teacher training.

Tommy Monk wrote:I've given you an article listing labours involvement in arms supplies, some of it is decidedly dodgy wouldn't you say???

And The biggest betrayal of parliament and The British people was the labour govt lying about Iraq and fabricating a case for war.

Kind of makes a couple of shady arms deals under the Tories nearly 20 years before seem rather insignificant don't you think...??

And where your own article says clearly that most of which they didn't even know about!!!

If they are in the public domain and fully transparent and not subject to the government lying and trying to prosecute businessmen for doing something they had given them secret approval to do then no,,,,,nothing dodgy there .
And you really have saved the best for last. If you think that misleading the House, lying and trying to prosecute innocent men for exporting Arms to Iraq when they had given them the Green light to do so and demanding immunity from prosecution for giving evidence is just a shady Arms deal then you have completely lost the plot and destroyed the very argument you are using against the last government with Iraq and the votes to try and stop it

Tommy Monk wrote:And which was only even brought up by You as a diversion and deflection from labour lying to start an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, hundreds of our soldiers killed or maimed, billions of pounds in costs to ttax payer and destabilised the whole region and directly led to The cluster Fuck that is happening right now!!!

That much is true Tommy but as I have already shown you, the Tories were right there with their support in backing the war and that they are completely unrepentant for their actions in doing so.
Damn all those that voted to reject the amendment,,,,,,,,,,,right?

by gerber Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:44 pm

Question for the panel..............

Will we and the US return to support if the President removes himself ?

by Sponsored content