Tony Blair and the war

[bang-hammer]

Who thinks the war shouldn't have started??

[bang-hammer]

I mean the war in Iraq BTW....doya think Bush talked Blair into it, or is he just stupid? Tell me what you think

[FightingForFreedom]

I think that this is a war of Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld and Geroge Tennents device.

I saw the look on Colin Powels face before the Iraq war. He was against it untill the very end when he was somehow convinced. Same with Blair. Eerily enough i see something similiar with Bush.

They were convinced.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

Is this topic specifically about Tony Blair's involvment in the Iraq war, or the Iraq war in general?

I don't believe the Iraq war was justified, but I don't really want to get into a debate about it

I will, however, happily argue that Tony Blair should not have taken Britain into a war. I believe the evidence he had at his disposal was patchy at best, and that he cynically maniupulated the public (e.g. The "45 minutes" claim)

I also think his handling of the BBC was impeachable at best.

[LegendaryLukus]

That wasn't our war, we should never have got involved. But there's nothing you can do about it without a delorian and a flux capacitor.

[Span-home]

Britian and america have been getting involved in other peoples wars for years so blair was just carryin on a long tradition of bombin people who cannot fight back

[BlueBlobClock]

lol, fuck off Britian. What would be funny, if the UK and the rest of europe went to war. That just displays how big asswiped the uk peopel are. UK People?

[pt9-9]

At 6/10/06 09:41 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote: I think that this is a war of Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld and Geroge Tennents device.

I saw the look on Colin Powels face before the Iraq war. He was against it untill the very end when he was somehow convinced. Same with Blair. Eerily enough i see something similiar with Bush.

They were convinced.

*sniff sniff*

I smell a conspiracy!

[Laduguer-Fisto]

At 6/10/06 10:59 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I will, however, happily argue that Tony Blair should not have taken Britain into a war. I believe the evidence he had at his disposal was patchy at best, and that he cynically maniupulated the public (e.g. The "45 minutes" claim)

A proof is a proof.
That's our motto!

[bombkangaroo]

Come one, it's been three years. You waited this long to start a conversation about it?

[Jooliver]

You gotta admit it is a bit late now to stop the effects of the war, but lets just limit it now i guess, and get out of the hole Tony Blair and Bush dug us in.

[JakeHero]

In all fairness WMDs were found and it is suspected that Saddam was trying to construct nuclear devices. I guess the people who object to this war would of rathered some terrorist use a warhead to obliterate a city in their country before any real action was taken.

[Kasualty]

What is point of having an army and not using it?

[Ranger2]

Well, Bang Hammer, I know Bush intended to go to war to attempt to help Iraq... not so sure if he did a good job.
well, usa and england are best freinds, i've heard blair was just a yes man, eager to keep the friendship he said yes to going to war, eager to do what bush wasdoing.

[SirLebowski]

At 6/10/06 09:16 AM, bang_hammer wrote: I mean the war in Iraq BTW....doya think Bush talked Blair into it, or is he just stupid? Tell me what you think

Let me tell you first off, Bush isn't a very persuasive guy. So I think it may just be the stupid. Then agian, we toppled the regime of a considerably big asshole. Genoside, anyone?

[Ice-9]

Should the war have started? With the socio-economic construct of the US and UK it was an inevitability. Government regulations and work ethics have forced businesses to go abroad in order to bring cheap goods into each respective nation. The European Union isn't that far behind the US and UK in their socio-economic construct, but have developed differently for a plethora of reasons which could fill-out a college text book on just the first three: geography, resource consumption, and ethnic ties.

The UK is an island, both in the figurative sense and literally. Being cut-off from the European mainland it isn't affected so much by what Europe does. This means that if an oil pipeline is pushed from Iraq to Spain, and snakes through every single country on the European continent, the UK is still without the benefits. Such a project would put the UK out, since it is much more difficult from an engineering and cost stand-point to construct things over water. This "island nation" concept has forced the UK has to develope itself in order to sustain itself -with or without the European mainland.

The United States and Canada (a British Commonwealth for all intensive purposes) are also "island nations" in terms that the US and Canada share a common heritage with Europe. However, the US and Canada have much closer ties to a British heritage since the they all share a common lineage (being former British colonies) and a linguistic ancestory as well! We are all English speakers, descended from European mainlanders, and cut-off from the racial homeland. Of course we're in cahoots!

This being said, with the advent of modern techonology and the industrial revolution, the English speaking world's growth more similar than the rest of the European ethnics. In short, because we are so similar what is good for one English speaking nation is probably good for the other English speaking nations.

Jump back to 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. A lack of reprisal would give Hussein the controlling portion of OPEC, making the world succumb to Iraq's price fixing. It was apparent that Iraq needed modernization and reconstruction after the disasterous conflict with Iran.

Now, up until 2005 it has been economically infeasible to even research "alternative fuels." It was cheaper to produce oil reliant industry -on a global scale. But, during the time-span of 1991-2003, however, ecomonies such as China and India began to grow. The basics of supply and demand hold the since a greater global demand existed the prices inevitable go up.

Needless to say, Iraq as plenty of oil, but couldn't sell it. The perceived need of Hussein didn't mesh with need of the global economy. Hussein wanted to invest in state infrastuctre to maintain his grip on the Iraqi people, and not the economic infrastructre the world needed. The UN oil-for-food program didn't help either. Because of Hussein's need of state infrastructre and the regulations imposed by the world governing body (the UN), a stalemate ensued.

The English speaking island nations were stuck with a dilemma: Either have prices go through the roof or force modernization on Iraq. With worries of ecomonic down-turn it was in the best interest of these nations to go into Iraq. Anything less would result in having the emerging economies surpass the current economic surpemacy of the English speaking world.

Truth be told, the current conflict in Iraq is nothing more than a continuation of the first Gulf War.

There are ways around this, but engaging in such change would demand an entirely new socio-economic model.

[rocket-scientist]

At 6/11/06 03:22 PM, JadedSoB wrote: In all fairness WMDs were found and it is suspected that Saddam was trying to construct nuclear devices. I guess the people who object to this war would of rathered some terrorist use a warhead to obliterate a city in their country before any real action was taken.

NO weapons of mass destruction were found. no amount of saying "in all fairness" will change that. and no credible intelligence exists to suggest that saddam was persueing a nuclear policy. the only evidence that suggested that was discredited by the CIA as clearly false.

the issue of terrorists with nukes is a completely different one. as saddam didnt have nukes and certainly wouldnt have given them to terrorists if he had them. saddam and osama were ideological enemies. the person to watch out for is osama and instead of taking "real action" to get rid of osama. we have tied up our armies in a war for years and years instead of dealing with the actual imminent threat and chasing down osama when we had a chance of catching him.

[JakeHero]

At 6/12/06 10:47 AM, rocket_scientist wrote:

At 6/11/06 03:22 PM, JadedSoB wrote: In all fairness WMDs were found and it is suspected that Saddam was trying to construct nuclear devices. I guess the people who object to this war would of rathered some terrorist use a warhead to obliterate a city in their country before any real action was taken.

NO weapons of mass destruction were found. no amount of saying "in all fairness" will change that. and no credible intelligence exists to suggest that saddam was persueing a nuclear policy.

All yeah, I guess you can tell the Kurds to stop faking it then. A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?

"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."

"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."

Through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment."

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

"The Iraqis admitted they had made 3.9 tons of VX," a powerful nerve gas, but claimed they had never weaponized it. The U.N. inspectors "felt they had more. But where did it go?" The Iraqis never provided any explanation of what had happened to their VX stockpiles.

Don't feed me that leftist bullshit that no WMDs were found when they were turned up.

the only evidence that suggested that was discredited by the CIA as clearly false.

Yes, as only the great rocket_scientist could have forseen at the time.

the issue of terrorists with nukes is a completely different one.

I'll educate you. A WMD isn't only a nuclear devise. It is a highly lethal weapon. WMD is an acronym for Weapon of Mass Destruction. It may also be a missile or biological weapon. Most are outlawed by the UN. Saddam just gave their regulations the middle finger and kept on producing.

as saddam didnt have nukes and certainly wouldnt have given them to terrorists if he had them. saddam and osama were ideological enemies. the person to watch out for is osama and instead of taking "real action" to get rid of osama.

Fool, it doesn't matter what bad blood Saddam and Osama held. If al-Qaeda(the terrorist cabal) made Saddam a good offer, he wouldn't refuse it. Since Saddam seems to be the man-eats-man person. Since high-ranking al-Qaeda members were proven to have refuge in Iraq prior to the invasion.

we have tied up our armies in a war for years and years instead of dealing with the actual imminent threat and chasing down osama when we had a chance of catching him.

Funny thing is that piece of shit Clinton had the chase to capture Osama when the Saudie Royal Family offered him up in the 90s, but being the gutless leftwing pussy he was, Clinton refused fearing a political backlash. It's reasonable to say Clinton's refusal was instrumental to the 9/11 attack.

[rocket-scientist]

"i'll educate you", if you choose to use quotation marks then show where the quotes come from otherwise their validity or not is questionable. this is a convention of all good journalism, academic and official reports.

you address a lot of specific points but in essence they can be summed up as clutching at straws. the significant and dangerous weapons of mass destruction, either chemical biological or nuclear were not found.

"In October, Duelfer released a preliminary report finding that in March 2003 -- the month of the invasion -- Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them.

The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

"After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power."
http://www.cnn.com/2..US/01/12/wmd.search/

the last sentence is one i broadly agree with.

from the same source
"In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair faced similar criticism.

He told his party's annual conference in September that the "evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong."

"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," Blair said. "But I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam." [T blair]"

i believe that answers the wmd issue if even tony blair acnowledges their non existence.
but i would like to address some of the issues you suggested

At 6/12/06 02:27 PM, JadedSoB wrote:
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

i'm sure there are all sorts of nasty biological agents under most peoples sinks. real scientists dont do dangerous biological weapons research at the sink of their house. maybe he was using a kids chemistry set too.

A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

did we go to war and all these thousands of people die because of remote control planes?

Through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment."

of course saddam wanted all sorts of crazy shit, did he get any though? otherwise its not a credible reason for war.

"The Iraqis admitted they had made 3.9 tons of VX," a powerful nerve gas, but claimed they had never weaponized it. The U.N. inspectors "felt they had more. But where did it go?" The Iraqis never provided any explanation of what had happened to their VX stockpiles.

didn't they say before the war that they had destroyed them. that sounds like an explanation to me.

Don't feed me that leftist bullshit that no WMDs were found when they were turned up.

no wmd were found. i guess that as even the whitehouse has acknowledged this that makes Goerge bush a leftist bullshiter.

Yes, as only the great rocket_scientist could have forseen at the time.

not at all, i didnt have all the intelligence reports that suggested wmd were not there. now they have come out i can condone those who misled us.

Funny thing is that piece of shit Clinton had the chase to capture Osama when the Saudie Royal Family offered him up in the 90s, but being the gutless leftwing pussy he was, Clinton refused fearing a political backlash. It's reasonable to say Clinton's refusal was instrumental to the 9/11 attack.

this is the only thing you said that i kinda agree with. the rot goes back years. doing the right thing at the right time is hard. but invading iraq wasnt the right thing. but following through on taking out osama would have been.