Number 10 Petition - ’Please go, Gordon’ – Sign hereComment at end
1st May, 2009
WHY NOT BOTH? HANG HIM AND BURN HIM!
(That might satisfy some at the Beeb)
Now that the UK’s six-year stint in Iraq has come to a close, expect the usual suspects out in force. They’ll mostly give it until tomorrow – out of respect for the troops, you understand.
With the obligatory “no-one is above the law … if they break it … and they have … they must pay the price” we will have regurgitation after indigestible puke as to just WHY we westerners, especially we Brits, must “do the right thing” and put our leaders on trial. (Especially him, of course – for whom they already have a specially designated place - hotter than the usual hell-holes this crowd of hangers and floggers seem to inhabit.)
Already some at the BBC are at it. Oliver Kamm refers to this here when he says of the BBC’s Hugh Sykes on Nicky Campbell’s Radio 5 programme:
Kamm: “I was moderately surprised to hear another interviewee, the longstanding BBC correspondent Hugh Sykes, say grudgingly that we have to believe that British politicians, in deciding on military intervention, were well-intentioned and did what they believed was right. (I haven’t listened to the recording – the whole programme is here - but the tone and the insinuation were clear to me and I suspect will be to you.)
Well yes, we do have to believe that, because Sykes neither cited nor possesses any evidence to the contrary. I invariably defend, without necessarily always admiring, the BBC’s foreign journalism, which usually manages to be informed and objective. But I thought this was an extraordinary remark for Sykes to have made. His role at the BBC is to report the news. It is not – as mine is at The Times – to express opinions on policy and politics.”
In my opinion most of the BBC has been deeply biased against the Iraq war and Tony Blair’s motivation for going there in the first place. His integrity, in other words, has endlessly and mercilessly been pilloried by most of the news departments of the BBC. Current affairs programmes, particularly on Radio 4, have often taken a somewhat different position. Their starting point is less ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘judgemental’ and as a result far better researched.
This Telegraph article, by Damien McElroy has the ”judgement” to open with this:
“As it was confirmed that the government would hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the war under Tony Blair’s leadership, the flag was lowered on the last British combat operation in Basra after commanders handed over to an American brigade with a handshake. “
Since all writers know the importance of the first sentence, Mr McElroy has made clear his priorities.
REPORT FROM OUR ‘WAR OPINION’ ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ
With all the hand-wringing and the they needn’t/shouldn’t have died that goes on amongst the naysayers, I’d like to say this:
Soldiers are adults. They know that they can die in combat whether they agree with the combat or not. Theirs is TO DO OR DIE. See Charge of the Light Brigade. This is not quaint other era stuff. It is how it is and always has been in the forces.
Journalists, on the other hand, especially war reporters, are supposed to be adult too. They are not described by the News at Ten newscaster as “our War Opinion on the ground”. They are meant to report, not opine. REPORT, not to pass judgement on political decisions in a semi-ignorant haze of worthy bias.
Listen to Radio 5 Live /breakfast here – It’s an hour long programme starting with the Memorial Service today in Basra. It begins with a roll-call of the names of the 179 dead in Iraq and the non-British troops who worked alongside the British troops in Basra.
The interviewer, Nicky Campbell then speaks to the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq. She says that although she is proud of her son she does not think the war was worthwhile.
At 25 minutes in, Oliver Kamm is interviewed. He explains why he thinks it was right that we did the intervention at a time of our choosing rather than let the problem fester.
Then Hugh Sykes is asked “What changes have you seen for the better?” he replies, “Democracy … but Basra is worse than when I first came here six years ago. Yes, there is freedom, we do have security, but with escorts.”
Sykes, scaremongering says - “Baathists still lurking …”
At 29 minutes in John Hutton, Secretary of State for Defence speaks.
Asked “Was this really worth it? Did you have any doubts? “, Hutton says, “Yes, and most people did, at the time, have doubts.”
Also, “Were you upholding the authority of the UN by invading?”
“Yes”, says Hutton, “that is my view … we tried very hard to get a second resolution … but we believe we had authority … today for me personally this is an opportunity to pay respect to our armed forces.”
Then Hugh Sykes again (at around 37m). THIS would be the part which Kamm saw rightly as biased. It is deeply so, from start to finish.
First of all Mr Sykes seems to attempt to cast aspersions on the useless nature of war in Iraq by referring to a war memorial for British and British Empire soldiers who fell in the Iraq campaign of 1914 to1921 – “thousands and thousands of names … I estimate rough count 8,000 names here who fell in that campaign.”
Then this – “And of course as the ex-para pointed out in one of the texts that you read out just now to John Hutton 3,500 Iraqi civilians have died since the British came to the south of Iraq in 2003 and again as a rough estimate I think it would take 10 hours to read out all their names.”
Campbell asks: “It’s a difficult morning for politicians, isn’t it?”
Sykes: “Yes, absolutely because we have to believe, I think, that they are … they’re well intentioned, that they did what they believed was right at the time. Although I do remember wondering when I heard Tony Blair many years ago before the Iraq war saying something along the lines of … but definitely using the word “capricious” … that he didn’t want to have to fall in line with the capricious resolutions at the United Nations. That made a lot of people angry because they thought that that was very unilateral, very arrogant that Britain just decided to do what it and America wanted to do. There are many people in Basra saying the British have done nothing here, all they’ve done is waste their own resources, their own treasury, their own time and 179 of their own lives. Now we have parents - a mother expressing very similar sentiments. She wondered what she would feel if she came here to Iraq and saw the changes I think was the expression that she used. Well, I could show her round … I’ll show anybody round … and I do believe that anybody of honest temperament would look around them and be appalled at the state of the city of Basra . The only place where it is even remotely picking up is on the Corniche along the Shat al-Arab Waterway. Everywhere else it is a broken place and people here wonder why after six years of the occupation why didn’t the occupiers fulfil the duty of the occupier and make some real noticeable improvements.
“HONEST” – “HONEST” Mr Sykes!?
So, if other people do not make the same judgement as you, Mr Sykes, are they not HONEST? If they think more time is needed to bring all of Basra to civilised living are they WRONG and DISHONEST and worse – guilty of not blaming Blair for the whole business? If they come to Iraq and are NOT persuaded by your biased tales of woe, are they NOT worthy? If they argue that insurgents are at least equally responsible for many of the deaths, if not most in Iraq are they imagining the suicide bombers?
Mr Sykes clearly recalled Blair’s “capricious” comment but not his “Doctrine of the International Community”, 1999. Nor his recent “International Doctrine Part 2″ speech, which is entirely consistent with Chicago 1999.
And yet this “doctrine” was much more noteworthy in explaining Blair’s stance on international responsibility than any remark on ignoring “capricious” or “unreasonable” Security Council vetoes, as he alluded to in parliament in March 2003. The Blair doctrine of 1999 was also ahead of its time and as politically responsible in outlook today as it was then. Anathema it will always be of course to so-called ”internationalist” socialists. With proud words should come, when required, action.
The alternative is and always has been isolationist hands-off-ism.
It should also be remembered that Blair tried repeatedly to press for a Second Resolution at the UN on Iraq, though this was NOT required. NOT required, since the UN had been led down the garden path over earlier resolutions to Saddam for 12 years. THEY, the UN had let the world down. “Capricious” is not the only descriptive word that should have been and could be still directed at the UN.
NOT REQUIRED = NO TRIAL OF DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM
It is NOT Mr Sykes’ place in this world to try to persuade people that Blair, his government, America, the international coalition and the armed forces were all in the wrong, by selectively showing them what reasonable, HONEST people would expect IN A WAR-TORN LAND. Honest, reasonable people would expect an unfinished job given the timescale.
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE RADIO PROGRAMME
A caller to Nicky Campbell, Chris, a serving soldier said, “Today, just today please … can we just take today to say “thank you” and recognise that they did do some good. We are not war-craving neanderthals. Let’s just take a break from the politicking and say thank you to them and to their families.”
The following two callers – again, more who know it all, a la Sykes mode. One says that “”A Labour government committing us to be in Iraq in the first place … this was a war built on lies”. And another caller said that ”Tony Blair wanted glory”.
WHAT INDEPENDENT/GUARDIAN/DAILY MAIL poppycock!
The first caller, Chris the soldier, returned to say that after therapy he now realised that suicide bombers caused the deaths of Iraqis, for which he originally blamed himself. (Oh, yes. Forgot about THEM, didn’t we, Mr Sykes?) “I feel that pain every day”, the soldier continued.
And this from AN Other “What George & Tony wanted was a large pile of dead bodies so that they could look like world statesmen…”
WHAT A DISGRACEFUL ACCUSATION – WHAT AN IDIOT!
And to Chris, with all the “knowledge” of an imbecile (sorry I do NOT have Mr Blair’s patience with such as these) -”The orders you were given were criminal and the International Criminal Court doesn’t apply to Americans …”
The point? That only Blair should be tried, since Bush can’t be? Or that our soldiers too should be in court?
A supporter of the Iraq invasion who lost his friend in Basra says that there were many issues … ”I support the invasion and the intervention. The strategy was a mess … the difference between different sectarian groups and us not reconciling them has led to so much hardship and horror.”
And then another caller starts by saying that today is about the soldiers – then he launches into an attack on the political decision!
Oh my, oh my, oh my.
They just CAN’T let go, can they?
THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE
What’s the origin of the phrase “It is not ours to wonder why, it is only ours to do… and die” and who’s quote is it?
: : : Forward, the Light Brigade!’
: : : Was there a man dismay’d?
: : : Not tho’ the soldier knew
: : : Some one had blunder’d:
: : : Their’s not to make reply,
: : : Their’s not to reason why,
: : : Their’s but to do and die:
: : : Into the valley of Death
: : : Rode the six hundred.
: : : Second stanza of The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred Lord Tennyson, about an awkward incident in the Crimean War. SS
: : One tiny change:
: : Theirs not to reason why,
: : Theirs but to do and die:
: Careless, careless, Smokey. I copied the text from a Googled source without checking it, an invitation to error. My bad. SS
Actually the Google source was correct: “their’s” is exactly what Tennyson wrote. The rules for use of the apostrophe have changed since the 1850s! (VSD)
ETCETERA
Only a tiny fraction of the victims of Saddam's terror reign. And "tiny" victims. For stopping that carnage alone western leaders deserve grateful praise not constant lambasting. It was ever thus from the myopic - to fail to see the wood for the trees. Hugh Sykes et al should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
- “Thank you”, says Canon Andrew White, who worked and preached in Iraq: “Our troops living and departed are doing, and have done, a wonderful job. They will not be forgotten. From the bottom of my heart I thank them along with the majority of the Iraqi people.”
- 57 pages of Saddam’s atrocities: Victims’ Mass Graves
- Ann Coulter on torture AmURICan-style: SHOCKING stuff if you are a touch quesy about crucifying former prime ministers.
- Number 10 Petition – ‘Please go, Gordon’ (now at 37,206 signatories, and TOP of the Number 10 charts.)
VERDICTS ON THE WAR (premature, imho, but there you go!)
- Scotsman: “Has it really all been worth it?” – Yes & No.
- Telegraph Talking Heads – Yes & No.
PRESCIENT THOUGHTS ON BBC BIAS (FROM JULY 2003)
- NRO article: Notes from the previous war - OR – the inability to admit that they (the BBC) got it ALL wrong.
By Denis Boyles –
‘A great deal of the current criticism of the British Broadcasting Corporation is based on the BBC’s appalling, biased coverage of the war in Iraq. As the war began and the Coalition invasion proceeded across the desert toward Baghdad, I sat watching French TV and listening to the BBC’s World Service. That’s as close to a state of suspended disbelief as a man can get. As the capital finally fell to the Americans, I made a few notes. Here they are.”I was wrong.”
Of all the words in all the paragraphs in all the stories ever written by journalists anywhere, the simple inability to utter those three syllables is what distinguishes, say, a Howell Raines from, say, a Michael Kelly.At the end of the day on April 5, 2003, it was also what finally distinguished the BBC World Service’s coverage of the war in Iraq from what was going on in the real world.’
This National Review Online article is so accurate that I intend to use it on its own page. The brainwashed need a lesson in understanding the source of their confusion.
The Iraq war was a victory for Bush & for Blair & for the Iraqi people.
Remember that in years to come when people sing the praises of those who stepped up to the mark when called upon.
Tags: BBC bias against Iraq Blair, British troops to leave Iraq, hang burn Blair, Hugh Sykes, Iraq war ends, Nicky Campbell, Oliver Kamm, the beeb, Tony Blair, troops leave Iraq
May 2, 2009 at 12:59 am |
Interesting that you pass quickly over the origins of the Iraq War. The dodgy dossiers, the lack of Worldwide support, the nuclear yelow cake falsehoods, the WMD claims and late change of heart on the legal side.
Blairs justifications were solely based on WMD’s. He said Saddam had them, Bush said Saddam had them,. Saddam said he never. Which of these 3 were telling the truth?
When the WMD case fell flat and uncomfortable questions were being asked, the Government changed tact to try and justify the slaughter going on in Iraq.
Saddam was an evil dictator but at the time Kim Jong Ill of North Korea, an evil dictator of equal standing, was threatening the globe with nuclear weapopns. Robert Mugabe, another tyrant, was at his height of terror. Why choose Saddam to remove when there was other targets riped to be taken out if we were going to sweep the world removing undesirable leaders?
Blairs actions let Al Queada flood into Iraq, led to ethnic cleansing on a horrific scale and led directly to the death of over a million Iraqi’s.
If you can call that a success, and you do seem quite happy to bravely condemn other people’s children and husbands and wives to die in wars, then i reach the conclusion that your sense of reasoning is so skewed as to be beyond ridicule.
Blair is directly responsible for the debacle that is Iraq and should be held accountable as any other war monger that we have had the misfortune to share the planet with.
May 2, 2009 at 10:09 am |
Having fun regurgitating, aren’t we Lucy?
The main difference between those who KNOW all about every facet of the decision-making process and those of us who are more humble is the tendency of the former (you) to conflate every “fact” to support your own prejudices.
I DO NOT KNOW all the facts. Nor do you.
What I DO know is this:
1. No British PM or government takes this country into a war situation in order to KILL innocent people.
2. No British PM or government takes this country into a war situation in order to KILL soldiers.
I also know this – Blair’s government at that time, had to make the decisions, with him in the hot seat. It wasn’t a comfortable place. But there are many political/diplomatic balls to keep in the air at the same time in such a situation. If Blair saw a global issue which he was convinced would impact on this country if left unchecked I for one am happy for him and his government to deal with it as they saw fit. That’s why we elect governments. And I didn’t vote Labour.
Your argument is the simple Fisk one – he lied. I do not acept that either.
The war was NOT unpopular when it was first launched. Over 60% of the public supported it, until the press started their lying over the issues. As to the WMD question – quite simply – so what!?
We are quite within our rights to take unilateral action against a threatening state or entity if the UN is not acting, and we feel we are being threatened. And the UN had not acted in 12 years as resolution after resolution was ignored by Saddam. How long was this to be allowed to go on? Forever?
Crazy, weak capitulation.
The UN let us and the world down. Saddam had WMDs and used them against his own people. It is also believed by intelligence sources worldwide (and recorded online) that Iran and Syria took the WMDs Saddam knew the UN was looking for (up to March 2003). He had plenty of notice! If people think Blair (and Bush) are accountable for cleaning up the UN’s unfinished mess, the UN too are responsible. Moreso.
I believe that we should have gone into Iraq regardless of the WMD issue. Unfortunately that became the main issue, at least in THIS country. The press then had a field day slamming Blair for “lying”. “Lying” with the “facts” as believed by everyone including the UN up until they were agreed to be (perhaps) inaccurate, or at least unprovable.
I did not start off thinking it was the right thing to do, but I have come to this conclusion the more I have learned about the issues. And the more I have seen the bias of the anti-brigade. The BBC in particular, as alluded to in my earlier post. THEIR angle stuck in the minds of many – and was conflated with that of the Mail (whose Conservatives ALSO supported the invasion), the Independent etc. That does not make any of the press right. Not one of their editors has the full political picture, much as they might like to preach from atop high horses. And not one of them has ANY responsibility for governance - only the right to feign greater care for others and higher moral values than mere elected politicians! Hah! What a joke.
They are hypocritical and confuse opinion with understanding.
Do you REALLY think Saddam was telling the truth!? Saddam – the mass murderer of his own and neighbouring people, including members of his own family. You’d believe HIM before Blair or Bush?
Your reasoning here puts you into a category fit for the Galloways of this world.
You say “led directly” to deaths etc. For a start numbers are highly disputed.
Secondly, have you ever noticed WHO is doing the killing? No I thought not. Suicide car bombers used to take out dozens daily. When the allied forces accidently hit a group of civilians it was all over the papers and the Beeb, of course, with THEIR agenda, with only a btw footnote for “another suicide car-bomber in a Baghdad market killed 90 people.”
Car bombing has droppped markedly in recent months due to the success of the mission. We and America and others have not left yet so it is not due to our going away that local insurgencies have decided not to kill their own! It is because WE HAVE BEEN VICTORIOUS.
Sad, I know, for such as you – but WE have beaten the insurgents.
Imbecile-like to suggest – as people like you do – that these suicide-bombers are justified, anyway. And if you didn’t realise it, you DO justify them by failing to criticise them.
Whether Blair thinks he would/could/should have done things differently I have no idea. But the very wrong-headedness displayed by such as yourself make me suspect, and hope, that he doesn’t.
This country should never be relegated into the hands of the “ah but what about Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe?” argument. None of us can do everything. No country, no entity, no UN. The “what about… ” angle leads to paralysis.
Ask the people in Iraq what THEY think. If you dare. Even the BBC in the last few days found most people were happy about their new country, despite the deaths (CAUSED, I repeat, MAINLY BY IRANIAN & OTHER LOCAL INSURGENTS). Some Iraqis are looking with trepidation at the day the west leaves Iraq.
I don’t blame them.
Some of us recognise evil when we see it.
As for the “warmonger” – he is a hero to many – Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland – to name but two. If you can’t stand the heat around heroes like Blair – YOU can get out of the kitchen. I doubt if you’ll be missed on the international political (judgement) scene.
So please cut your juvenile nonsense. And do try to get your facts straight, or keep out of research until you’re mature enough to handle it.
Name calling is not research or understanding.
May 3, 2009 at 1:11 am |
You can call it regurgitating, i like to think of it as trying to educate and inform you of the facts and they are facts, not something that i pulled out of thin air to give credence to my claims. Go away and check them for yourself, i imagine you can find them all online. I will even provide the links for you if you wish.
That’s the problems with wars, innocent people get killed which is why you have to try everything to avoid them and then when you have tried everything, you try it again. To send other peoples relatives into war, you have to be a million percent certain you are right. The UN members didn’t believe him, members of his own cabinet resigned in protest, the Weapons Inspectors were telling him he was wrong, his legal advisor wasn’t sure and countless millions demonstrated around the World so how could he be so certain?
The WMD question was what he based it all upon, it was his justification.
The Nigerian yellow cake was shown to be false almost immediately and the UN Weapons Inspectors were being sent to places expected by Blair and Bush to house WMDs and were coming back empty handed. Rather than keep them there and searching, they pulled them out, invaded, set up their own search teams and found nothing either. It took killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to reach the same conclusion as the Weapons Inspectors had reached previously.
Israel have been defying UN resolutions for decades so if that’s your criteria for military action, our tanks should be arriving in Tel Aviv soon shouldn’t they? How long can they be allowed to go on? Forever?
So who was lying? Blair said he definetly had WMD’s. Saddam said he never had any. Who was being honest? Which of these two were right? They both couldn’t be. It must be hard to think that a murdering tyrant was being more honest than your hero.
Have you not seen a televison screen recently or read a newspaper? The insurgency are as strong as ever, a car bomb killed over 50 in a Baghdad market just last week, car bombs and truck bombs are going off almost weekly killing scores. Your claim that ‘WE HAVE BEEN VICTORIOUS’ is only correct if you are willing to accept that the deaths of tens of Iraqis every week while innocently going about there business is a sign of victory. A very strange world you must live in if thats the case.
If you read some of the other posts on my blog you would know that i criticise anyone who shows disrepect to the lives of others whether they are American, British, Palestinian, Israeli, Chinese or North Korean. I don’t have an agenda, i just see people being killed and say its wrong whoever it is. The UK, the US, Al Queada and the Sunni and Shias slaughtering each other are all to blame for the current carnage in Iraq.
Finally, i would say that the Iraqis are indeed fearing the UK and US troops leaving. We filled the country with murdrering terrorists who are killing them with nauseating ease while the troops are there. Imagine what they will do when the troops go and they have a free hand to do what they want. Horrific thought.
I don’t know what you were doing in 2003 or how close to the Iraq War debate you were at the time but i strongly suspect that you are relying heavilly upon hindsight for your arguments. I was a member of the media then, still am now although in a teaching capacity, and i am as certain of my facts now as i was when i was reporting on the whole sorry mess back then. One thing that i am sure of is that what i put to you here and on my blog is a correct asessment of how the chain of events unfolded prior to and during the invasion. You may not like it, it probably jars with your agenda and your admiration for Tony Blair and you can dismiss me and what i say but the facts and timelines are there for future generations to make up their own mind.
Just for the record, i voted for Blair in 1997 and thought that he was doing a fine job up until the Iraq War.
May 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
KTBFPM,
You are fighting a losing battle with minds that have turned to mush by a power-driven left wing media cult. How many times must we remind our fellow citizens that Tony Blair and President Bush were not alone in making their decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan? The “poor”" Congress and Parliament were “misled”? Give me a break! How many times do we have to remind them that the only headlines we see coming out of the United Nations is its corruption and uselessness?
One way the naysayers would get a thorough education and truthful reports from the front lines is to visit Michael Yon’s website. This is an archived report from Michael’s site: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/archive-2008/ (The whole site is worth a good, hard look by anyone who wants to be “enlightened”).
I reference Yon’s site because the general public has no idea where in the world their valiant military is and have no idea of the kind of work they do. They are not simply warriors, they are peacemakers and leaders; they are everywhere in the world, working constantly to keep our shores safe, to prevent another 9/11 or 7/7 but, at the same time they are our ambassadors of goodwill. Yes, I said GOODWILL!
I would challenge the mush-minded to investigate the realities of what good has been done in Iraq. Can they handle the truth or are they content to be lost in the quagmire of “selective” reporting?
Anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein was no threat to the rest of the world is an idiot. Did he not invade Kuwait, or was that a figment of our imagination? Who did the Saudies and the Kuwaities call on for help? Did we not see the truth on the front pages of newspapers when Saddam ordered the slow, agonizing deaths of the Kurdish babies, women and men, when his Air Force released the deadly mustard gas? During the Iran-Iraq war, both sides were using biological weapons of mass destruction. Iran had a gas similiar to cyanide and Iraq had mustard gas. THAT is a FACT. Do we think Hussein would have destroyed his mustard gas because we “asked” him to? Do we think the inspectors were shown the hidden stockpiles of gases or do we think Saddam was smart enough to get them out of the country?
The current events of today show just how dangerous Saddam could have become, had we continued to look the other way. Iraq was the center of a far reaching spider web. Saddam was wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with countries who are now a threat to all. According to this report, Saddam had “business dealings” with Iran, North Korea and others with the same goal in mind; control of the entire Middle East and the destruction of the West.
http://www.int-review.org/irq17a.html
If we had not toppled Saddam, it would have been only a matter of time before he would have “hooked up” with the likes of Pong (N. Korea) and Ahmadinejad who happen to be the REAL warmongers of the world.
Tony Blair and President Bush, among others knew this threat was real and it needed to be stopped. My only concern now is that we may have gone in too late. Those weapons are still out there somewhere and I fear they are not in the hands of our friends. Saddam proved to be only one cog in the wheel of evil. One powerful weapon we have at our fingertips (but, seems to be elusive) is the weapon of public opinion. If we could all get on the same page and support our nations’ leaders and our military, the enemies of freedom would be easily defeated.
I hate to think the only time we will do this is when we have another 9/11.
May 3, 2009 at 9:58 pm |
Just a short reply to Lucy:
“That’s the problems with wars, innocent people get killed which is why you have to try everything to avoid them and then when you have tried everything, you try it again.”
Neville Chamberlain and the rest of the world learned that appeasement doesn’t work. As for whether or not Saddam had WMD’s it’s a bit of a moot point. All the world believed he had them, and it was his own stupidity that kept him claiming he had them until something had to be done. Which is the same sort of mentality that the left wing liberals continue to spout when they want to prosecute Blair and Bush for simply reacting to a threat. But, attempting to break through the mushy minded diatribes of the left is fruitless. They should be glad, however, that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s or the carnage might have been worse.
May 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
A moot point? It the one point that Blair took us to war on so how can it be moot? The raison d’etre of invading Iraq. If it wasn’t for Blairs insistence that he had them, we would not have gone in. You can’t just sweep that under the carpet as if it doesn’t matter. Blair knew that it was the only thing he could safely say. If he had said Saddam was an evil tyrant killing his own people, everyone would have asked why Saddam was worse than any other evil tyrant killing his own people and why put him top of the list. He couldn’t link Saddam to 9/11 or Al Queada so all he had was Saddam was threatening us with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He had two stabs at presenting evidence, one was exposed as stolen off the internet, written by a student and the second one has since been shown to have been shuttled backwards and forwards to change the syntax, remove caveats and harden the case. Sex it up as it become known.
The purchase of Nigerian yellow cake was dismissed almost straight away and the word ‘nuclear’ was dropped from the list of weapons Saddam had. His actual possessing WMD’s mutated into working on chemical and biological weapons programs when it was becoming aware to all that these accusations were also bogus.
These facts are undeniable and only the most rabid and gullible Blair supporter can continue to argue against them.
As for Saddam’s stupidity, he said he never had any. Blair said he did. I ask again, which of these two were telling the truth? Must make you and your kin very uncomfortable to know which of these two was the liar.
I have no problem with the right arguing there case, as deluded, ignorant and naive as i think it is, but i don’t want to see history being rewritten or the facts altered about why the invasion happened. As i said above, i had no problem with Blair up until 2003, i was a big fan of many of his policies including the introduction of Tax Credits and the minimum wage, but as great as these policies were, his place in the Iraq debacle
is rightly what he should be remembered, and castigated, for.
May 4, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
Ref: “Moot point”
Just to be helpful, Lucy – and I know that is NOT your instinct towards those of us who support the “war criminal” – but I don’t have time to dig through the well-written responses to your simplistic views – so who said “moot point”? Don’t think it was me.
May 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm |
Lucy, you seem to be SO confident that you have got everything right on this one. Well, others here have presented very good arguments to the contrary and I would like to chip in with a series of pieces I did for Progressonline which were also designed to set out the facts and the timelines to enable future generations to make up their minds. They can be accessed here :
http://theprogressive.typepad.com/the_progressive/iraq/
You can get some idea of their content from the headings, which include “22 reasons why it was right to invade Iraq” (this has the timeline you seem to be so concerned about), “Ten lies about the Iraq war” (which covers a very different set of lies to those you refer to), and “Yes, but what did the IRAQIS think of the invasion?” (which sets out the polling evidence in this respect).
In all the time these articles have been around no one has come up with a plausible response. Perhaps with YOUR degree of certainty of where the truth lies you might be able to come up with a first – or NOT, as the case may be.
And by the way, those UN resolutions that you say Israel has been defying only called for an Israeli withdrawal IN RETURN FOR recognition of Israel’s right to exist, which of course Hamas and their ilk have never accepted. Moreover the resolutions were under a chapter of the UN Charter which did not allow for military action whereas the UN resolutions on Iraq DID come under the chapter that permitted military action.
Just one example of where you have got it SO wrong. I challenge you to look up the other examples set out in my articles.
May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm |
Grundoon said ‘As for whether or not Saddam had WMD’s it’s a bit of a moot point.’ Maybe you should have the decency to read what people take the time to write on your blog. It’s just manners.
Stan. I have no problem debating the Israel question and asking you if there is any of the 130+ UN Resolutions passed against Israel between 1948 and 2009 that you care to debate, but that is for another time. Just let me know where and when i will be happy to indulge you then.
I will get back to on the Iraq question you after reading your link.
May 5, 2009 at 9:10 pm |
Lucy, dear child. You really ARE being silly here, aren’t you. (Rhetorical question – I wouldn’t want to make you have to THINK.)
The rules on blogs, unwritten, but then so are so many of the rules by which civilisation continues, is that you add the person’s name in order that they can reply to you. If you had said, for instance, “To Grundoon – ‘moot’ point …” etc he might well have thought it worth answering. It was not a point you were making to ME, and I am not in the business of replying on other commenters’ behalf. Most of the time thay are adult enough to manage that themselves.
Manners?
WHY, when I knew I hadn’t said it, and therefore it wasn’t directed at me, should I spend time re-reading everything, just so that I DON’T answer (on someone else’s behalf?) I certainly do not memorise everything everyone writes on this blog. In case you haven’t noticed there are other pages to deal with too.
And I certainly haven’t the time or inclination to work out how old the person is who thinks there is such a thing as “a million percent”!
Grow up, for Gawd’s sake.
You’ve lost it on the Iraq argument. And if you keep on you will lose it even MORE disastrously no matter how hard you try.
Whether others will be bothered spending time on your “mushy brain” is for them to decide.
May 5, 2009 at 9:32 pm |
Even shorter response to Lucy. If Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction what did he use to kill so many Kurds and his own people? WMDs are not just bombs, Lucy.
May 5, 2009 at 10:55 pm |
KTBFPM – I seem to have irked you which i wasn’t trying to do. What exactly does ‘lose it even MORE disastrously’ mean?
Sensible debate from you seems to have gone out the window. Dear child? Gawds sake? Threats?
You expect anyone to take you seriously when you plumb such depths of juvenile vocabulary? If you cannot handle anyone opposing your thoughts, why do you blog and why visit other blogs and leave comments?
You came to my blog and challenged my thoughts and now you throw a sulk because i have the nerve to return the favour and make your position look weak.
If you really are so ridiculously thin skinned and don’t want people with alternative thoughts to engage with you, stay to your own corner and preach to the converted here.
May 6, 2009 at 1:12 am |
Lucy, as always you fail to get it.
You CANNOT debate sensibly because you are repeating the wrong information/opinions provided to you by third parties ALL of whose prejudiced views you have swallowed whole.
The juvenile language comes from yourself, my dear, as do the juvenile arguments. This is not a debating site for all the world’s misfits, whose treacherous aim in life is to get western political leaders behind bars. You already have the Guardian for that.
Those who regularly comment here do so because we believe in western democracy FIRST, and we respect the leaders elected to protect it – WHATEVER IT TAKES.
I have NO respect – NO respect whatsoever for people with your views – which basically start and end with the puerile argument – He LIED – and that’s the worst thing EVER! Worse than Saddam – the mass murderer – worse than allowing rogue fundamentalist states to flourish – worse than allowing the world to see the depths of barbarity these people will go to (even killing their own).
Blair’s a bad man. He lied.
Come ON!
Puerile, juvenile, WRONG, immature arguments lacking ANY political nous.
It’s shameful and atrocious that people spout this nonsense, as though politicians should have been born yesterday, like you and your ilk.
For a start I do not accept that Blair lied. He admitted in parliament that the intelligence had not been as secure as it might have been. BUT ALL countries and the UN had accepted it. So – he did not lie.
Get that in your thick skull, please before repeating or REGURGITATING the same tripe. (And yes you DO and DID irk me.)
I will NOT take the same repeated nonsense here from you or anyone. This is not a debating society for undergraduates but a site set up for those of us who appreciate Mr Blair. Your arguments are as old as the dry Iraqi hills and hold as much water.
A further point – and this is to concede nothing – I HAVE MADE MY FIRST POINT VERY CLEAR – all politicians at some time bend the truth. Churchill did it, Thatcher did it – it is part of the game.
So stopping your expectation of Sunday School behaviour in a country where 80% of people say they would willingly cheat and LIE in work – would show some maturity. In fact if my country’s survival depended on it in the face of the enemy within such as yourself – I would sincerely HOPE that politicians would be willing to “lie” if necessary. NOT to do so, when faced with congenital liars such as we presently have in the Middle East right now – would be to let us down for the sake of an impossible child-like dream.
A touch of reality and mature understanding is called for when debating politics.
I repeat, in case you don’t get it – I DO NOT ACCEPT BLAIR LIED.
Bottom line.
There is no point in referring to the “proof” from others who like you were not in on any of the decision-making process. NONE of them knows everything. In fact few of them know anything.
P.S. Forgot to explain the business about “more disastrously”. Unlike your good self I do not normally (except when faced with inate stupidity) impune others’ integrity. Unlike you who directly accuse Blair of being of low/no integrity, without ANY facts – only your opinion, and yet you are so sure it is right you’d have him in court where you’d cite your ignorant hearsay evidence as the prosecution case! The simple fact is that if and when people like you come round to understanding that you were wrong, you will still not admit it. Then such as me are forced to ask WHO exactly you are and what exactly is your motivation for doing down our country. In other words YOUR integrity and loyalty will be questioned.
Mr Blair may take it easy on opinions that differ from his. I haven’t got his patience with such irrationality over this important wide-ranging issue.
No-one is guilty of anything until proven guilty. And he won’t be.
But you, and your motivation for high-horse sitting … that might well be a different matter.
As I said earlier I think The Guardian and it’s 14-year-old reading/writing level is the place for you.
May 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Stan, I read through some of your posts on your blogs. Rather than comment on each individually, because of the amount and age of the posts (and because my team have just been knocked out of the semi-finals of the European Champions League by Manchester United of all teams and that is clouding my mind at present), it would be more interesting if you posted about your thoughts of the Iraq invasion now and i commented on that post. Hopefully that would pull everything from your posts together and we can bat that backwards and forwards.
If you would prefer i respond to each post, to perhaps be the first to come up with a plausible response as you say, then as time consuming as that would be, i will slog my way through them when i get the time.
Grundoon. Saddam certainly did have WMD’s then. There is a famous picture of a meeting between him and Donald Rumsfeld taken when he was the recipient of those very same WMD’s he used to kill those kurds and own people you mention. He also used them during the Iran/Iraq War but as he was the lesser of two evils, the west sided and armed him then with these weapons.
The question is, did he have them and where they primed and ready to be used against us within 45 mins notice as Mr Blair told us? The simple answer is no. The next question then would be did Blair know and lie to us then? The fact that he had to go to such extreme lengths to make his own case tells its own story.