Iraq abuse as bad now as under Saddam -former PM

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 26, 2005.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #2
    This kinda stuff happens when you downgrade a working (though not perfectly by any means) country into active warzone. Power tends to shift twards the militant and the militant tend to do the same thing as the baddy we threw out. Anybody ever see Bananas by Woody Allen?
     
  3. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #3
    So the death of tens of thousands at the cost of billions was all for nothing? Well, not exactly. At least some have benefitted - Link
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    Will this train ever pull into the station so we can get off?
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    I don't know -- we may have to jump.
     
  6. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    But they don't come to rest for a while. Jump while there's still time.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Will you have us back? I mean, New England's not that far away. If you've got that back maybe you can finally let that chunk of Ireland go.

    Perhaps a few states could apply for Dominion or Commonweal status.

    I for one would welcome our new Monarchich/Parliamentary overlords.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    Done, before you change your mind.

    Perhaps you should wait until the poodle's been put down...
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Careful, it doesn't come with a money-back guarantee.

    BTW, I've asked this before -- but don't you think Mr Blair has political motives and designs all his own?
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    He carries the WASP Man's Burden, of course. His political motives are hard to decipher, but as far as I'm concerned, his "thinking" on Iraq was every bit as culpably deceitful and recklessly vainglorious as Junior's. Both distorted the evidence and suckered their electorate into an ill-conceived and ineptly executed quasi-colonial adventure in blatant breach of every available international treaty. Frankly, I don't care what noble or ignoble motives Blair might have: he's helped to screw things up for years to come, and has helped to legitimize gratuitous military aggression in an unstable world.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    All of this aside for the moment... I've always wondered quite specifically how it was that the "poodle" explanation of Blair's cooperation with Bush got such common coinage in the UK; as if to say Blair has no will of his own. This seems an unusually unflattering way to describe a political leader, especially in this case. Whether you agree with them or not, I think he had motives for participating in the Iraq debacle that had little to nothing to do with a desire to become Dubyah's lackey.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    I expect he and George were both motivated by a Sense of Duty towards Civilization and History. I believe they are both creatures of Manifest Destiny. Too much self-regard. Perhaps Blair thought he could moderate George's behaviour. Perhaps he did - the mind fairly boggles at that thought - but he shared in the same crime to a great and inexcusable extent. By only committing a risible fraction of the necessary forces, he failed even to achieve the necessary leverage.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Perhaps, but I think the motives were a bit more prosaic. The way I see it, Britain is in a very uncomfortable position these days -- not a world power in its own right, and at the same time, not a full participant in the EU. I think Blair hopes, or at least hoped, to use your country's spilt position between Europe and the U.S. as a way to establish new relevance for Britain as a geopolitical force. As you might have guessed, this isn't a theory entirely of my own invention. I read a similar analysis couple of years ago. It's rung true ever since, from what I've seen at least.
     
  15. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #15
    I'm sure Prozac has played some part in all of it.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    No point crying about it, then.
    I have no doubt he sees, like others in the recent past, that the only way for Britain to punch above its weight is to piggyback on the greater Anglo power. Also, of course, Britain's so-called "independent nuclear deterrent" is nothing of the sort. The leverage goes both ways.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Who you calling a pill?
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    Not sure I get what you mean by "crying about it," but I think this notion transcends the classic gambit of gaining stature by playing American's best mate. I believe the Blair theory of geopolitics has the UK cast in the role of being "not Europe, but not the US" -- IOW, a middleman of a sorts. This could be an increasingly important position as the EU gains in economic strength and influence, and in fact might be Britain's only hope of remaining geopolitically important in the new environment of European quasi-unity. I'm fairly certain this is how Blair sees it, and I think goes a long way towards explaining Blair's decision to side with the US on Iraq while running interference in "old Europe." I believe that Blair has goals of his own. I have a difficult time accepting the proposition that he's merely a wobbly sycophant, AKA, GWB's poodle.
     

Share This Page