Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iShater, Jan 29, 2010.
Iraq Inquiry hears Blair.
He's not exactly going to admit guilt is he . Blair does seem to have become a bit obsessed though, he could have said it was a mistake.
But "it" wasn't a mistake, so we appreciate Blair's honesty...the Iraq War has made the world a safer place...
Half of the time the odious twat was more interested in discussing Iran than Iraq, sounding like the most zealous Neocon that he is.
Again, I'd like to ask which world you are living in?
It was a cock-up of epic proportions, as well as being a war crime. The post-war planning was practically non-existent, the Geneva Conventions were breached in almost every way possible. There was no proper basis for the invasion and occupation under international law. Once an invasion and occupation is under way, the occupying power has an absolute duty to maintain order, basic amenities, the infrastructure and civil control for the benefit of the occupied, may not carry out exemplary punishments, may not arbitrarily detain, torture and/or kill the civilians under its power, and may not use banned weapons and munitions. All these things were done in clear breach of international obligations, and hundreds of thousands of people died. Vast sums of money were distributed in the form of bribes and inducements, an already corrupt political class was further subverted in the process, and a puppet government was installed giving enormously greater influence to Iran, to the detriment of the regional balance of power. To claim that this appallingly cynical exercise in military and geopolitical adventurism has left the world a safer place is flagrantly dishonest and flies in the face of any reasonable appraisal.
The real one in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people and on the Iranian people in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war, Uday Hussein tortured his own Olympic athletes and committed many other acts of genocide, and Qusay Hussein conducted horrible abuse of Iraqis and joined his brother and father in acts barbaric against the Iraqi people. Yes... the world is far safer as a result of the Iraq War....
Care to look at the rest of the world? Perhaps you'd also like to look into how life has changed in Iraq for women, children, gays, jews, etc.
Or better yet, respond to skunk, I'd love to see him rip your pathetic rebuttals to shreds. Your narrow mindedness on this topic is downright scary.
Right, it's only the USA which should be allowed to use chemical weapons on Iraqis.
Obviously the world is far better off if responsible Western powers are doing the torture and abuse. Those damned Iraqis just don't do it efficiently enough.
You mean the chemical weapons supplied by the US?
You're right... the whole idea of Iraqi women voting freely in democratic elections is absolutely life changing...
Safer how? The Iraq war accomplished nothing other than opening the oil fields to contract bidding for private companies.
But is it a safer place or do you perceive it as safer post the Iraqi invasion? Very much like Anthony Blair said the risk hadn't changed post-September 11th, only "our perception of the risk had shifted."
Well... as the example I depicted shows, the Iraqi War brought some sense of democracy to the nation; more democracy than the Iraqi people had ever seen. Women voting freely, for the first time in their lives, in open and democratic elections. So in that sense, in my opinion, the nation is safer. And Tony Blair is correct. Now you can condemn him, ignore the real reforms in Iraq, ignore the freedom that Iraqis now have, ignore the brutality that Hussein and Sons threatened the nation with pre-war, and go along with Obama who was against the Iraq War and against the surge that eventually won the war, as is your want. But in doing so you'd be against the example I depicted, of a woman freely voting in her first open democratic election... That says a lot... The Iraq war was a costly war; that's certainly true. But the nation is indeed safer; that's also true.
It says nothing like enough to counterbalance the appalling suffering visited on the Iraqi people by Western interference.
So you were cool with Hussein & Sons and their appalling suffering they visited upon the Iraqi people?
Democracy does not equal safety.
No, not nearly as "cool" with it as the US government was while they supplied him with weapons, intelligence and diplomatic cover while his forces killed over a million Iranians. Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator, but that is not sufficient reason under the international law drafted in part by the USA for the US and its allies to invade and occupy his country and slaughter his people.
No, but to say that things are better simply because he is gone is just plain ignorant. Conditions are worse than ever for large groups of people.
Thanks and I find your depiction very interesting.
Tell me, then, when does "invade, occupy" (using your words) become valid in your opinion? Was it valid in France in 1944 to evict Hitler? If so, why and if not, why not?
I am trying to understand why you see the passage of democracy Coalition troops brought to Iraq as wrong and comparing it with other like efforts...
since the fiasco of the iraq war lead to the election of obama and a democrat controlled congress, I guess there is indeed an argument that the world is a safer place
It is abominable to suggest a parallel between the D-Day landings and the invasion of Iraq. Hitler was not French. Hitler had invaded and occupied France. Hitler was abetted by a French puppet government. Hitler practised exemplary punishment. Yet Hitler was supported by a corrupt and compliant French puppet government. The Allies, including French forces, of course, were evicting the invader, not doing the invading themselves. Can you really not tell the difference?
You're going to have to provide links..
If I could go back in time, I would stay the hell out of the middle east. No weapons, no war, no aide.