Q) Guess who wants a second crack at being Prime Minister?

To be honest I'm far more concerned about communist dictatorships like China (and let's face it, Russia ) having WMD's than a sparsely populated desert country.

Lagamorph wrote:Question, why is it that any country which currently has WMD's and has had them for years is seen as having a god given right to have them, but if any country which doesn't have them so much as expresses an interest in developing them then they are instantly branded as evil and planning to use them to wipe out the world?

Yup, that is an interesting question for which I don't have an answer for!

I suppose you could argue that the US have only ever used them once to end the worst conflict the world has ever seen, and that Saddam had already shown that he would be dangerous with that ability. In the case of Iran I suppose you would have to look at the comments they have made about Israel. North Korea kind of beats me, I guess the only justification is that the regime in place there looks a bit threatening!

In principle though, I do agree with you that the very subject seems massively hippocritical.

Lagamorph wrote:To be honest I'm far more concerned about communist dictatorships like China (and let's face it, Russia ) having WMD's than a sparsely populated desert country.

You forgot to add 'with a maniacal tyrant as a ruler willing to use said WMDs' to the end of that.

Whether people agree with military action in Iraq or not is irrelevant as the general public have no say in how the UKs armed forces are deployed.

Anyway, WMDs or not, Saddam simply had to go as his regime was a serious threat to the middle-east.

Ironhide wrote:Whether people agree with military action in Iraq or not is irrelevant as the general public have no say in how the UKs armed forces are deployed.

We most certainly should. The government is meant to execute the will of the people, and it's the government that control the armed forces.

Ironhide wrote:Anyway, WMDs or not, Saddam simply had to go as his regime was a serious threat to the middle-east.

And yet the Middle East was far more stable back when Saddam was in power than it is now.

He really is still full of his own self importance isn't he? What a prick. Wouldnt surprise me if Labour lapped it up though.

Fizheuer Zieheuer wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:And yet the Middle East was far more stable back when Saddam was in power than it is now.

ps tyrannism and genocide

Neither of which are happening in the Middle East right now?

Less tyrannism, more Tyranids.

Lagamorph wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Whether people agree with military action in Iraq or not is irrelevant as the general public have no say in how the UKs armed forces are deployed.

We most certainly should. The government is meant to execute the will of the people, and it's the government that control the armed forces.

The problem here is the people are stupid fuckwits controlled by the media.

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

1cmanny1 wrote:So why don't you like this guy? What did he do, was he that bad?

There was that whole unnecessary, illegal war thing.

It wasn't actually, technically, illegal though was it? No charges have ever been brought and nobody will ever be able to bring charges. Massively unpopular and terribly planned yes, but it wasn't illegal.

Then maybe we need to look at actually having democracy. Tony Blair lied deliberately to the public about the reasons for the war and nothing will ever be done about it. That sickens me.

Besides, the legitimacy of the war is very complicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy ... on_of_Iraq

Nothing will be done because the guilty parties are all part of the same system.

He didn't lie. All the inquiries showed the intelligence was wrong. There wasn't anybody who didn't think Saddam didn't have WMDs before the war. Most of the UN conceded WMDs were likely but it was on the action to take that they didn't agree. Saddam deliberately took measures to make it look like he did have them.

The intelligence agencies got it wrong, it wasn't a lie.

EDIT: I don't want it to sound like I am defending Blair's Government here. There were massive failings in the lead up to and during the initial invasions which the inquiries did find and lessons need to be learnt from. I just genuinely don't think there was a deliberate attempt to dupe the public. I just think they got the intelligence completely wrong.

The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

1cmanny1 wrote:So why don't you like this guy? What did he do, was he that bad?

There was that whole unnecessary, illegal war thing.

Wasn't that just doing what the US wanted? Everyone does that.

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

So you honestly believe that Blair and Bush just 'strawberry floated up' and invaded a country, leading the deaths of tens of thousand, on evidence that was shonky? The 'conspiracy' is far more plausible. Many government insiders have come out and said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and was just looking for excuses. Interviews with George Tenet make for very interesting reading.

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

So you honestly believe that Blair and Bush just 'strawberry floated up' and invaded a country, leading the deaths of tens of thousand, on evidence that was shonky? The 'conspiracy' is far more plausible. Many government insiders have come out and said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and was just looking for excuses. Interviews with George Tenet make for very interesting reading.

If it was a conspiracy, I don't believe it would have been done so poorly. They would have at least tried to fake real evidence that there was a WMD program.

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

So you honestly believe that Blair and Bush just 'strawberry floated up' and invaded a country, leading the deaths of tens of thousand, on evidence that was shonky? The 'conspiracy' is far more plausible. Many government insiders have come out and said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and was just looking for excuses. Interviews with George Tenet make for very interesting reading.

If it was a conspiracy, I don't believe it would have been done so poorly. They would have at least tried to fake real evidence that there was a WMD program.

They did though, the whole '45-minute dossier' thing remember?

Whatever the reasons for Iraq, his current activities should be under the microscope. Was surprised no one had posted this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/27/nick-cohen-tony-blair-kazakhstan

Lagamorph wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

So you honestly believe that Blair and Bush just 'strawberry floated up' and invaded a country, leading the deaths of tens of thousand, on evidence that was shonky? The 'conspiracy' is far more plausible. Many government insiders have come out and said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and was just looking for excuses. Interviews with George Tenet make for very interesting reading.

If it was a conspiracy, I don't believe it would have been done so poorly. They would have at least tried to fake real evidence that there was a WMD program.

They did though, the whole '45-minute dossier' thing remember?

That was debunked almost as soon as he said it though. What I mean is, they would have shown some kind of evidence of WMD programs after the invasion, like missiles.

For me though, it is as TimeGhost says, he has probably lost more credibility since he left office due to his dubious activities.

captain red dog wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:The agencies lied and made up evidence under order of Blair and (mostly) Bush. Ex CIA agents have said exactly this.

That never happened. I'm sure there was pressure to get the best evidence they could, but there were never any orders to fake evidence.

It was the culture in place that led to the failings. There was no conspiracy. People may think Bush and Blair had this sinister plan going on but the truth is they just completely strawberry floated up.

So you honestly believe that Blair and Bush just 'strawberry floated up' and invaded a country, leading the deaths of tens of thousand, on evidence that was shonky? The 'conspiracy' is far more plausible. Many government insiders have come out and said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq and was just looking for excuses. Interviews with George Tenet make for very interesting reading.

If it was a conspiracy, I don't believe it would have been done so poorly. They would have at least tried to fake real evidence that there was a WMD program.

They did though, the whole '45-minute dossier' thing remember?

That was debunked almost as soon as he said it though. What I mean is, they would have shown some kind of evidence of WMD programs after the invasion, like missiles.

For me though, it is as TimeGhost says, he has probably lost more credibility since he left office due to his dubious activities.

They would have lost way more face by faking real evidence. It would be much harder to get out of it when nothing was found, or even if they planted evidence it would require way more people to be involved in the lie.

The lied exactly as much as they needed too. They lied to sell the war they wanted to the pubic, ensuring they didn't go 'too big' and they could still blame someone else if (when) they got caught.

Isn't it more likely they actually did just make the decision on flawed evidence? I honestly think people give Bush and Blair too much credit by suggesting it was cleverly constructed plot.

captain red dog wrote:Isn't it more likely they actually did just make the decision on flawed evidence? I honestly think people give Bush and Blair too much credit by suggesting it was cleverly constructed plot.

Well exactly.

The actual reasons used were wrong in the end but in my mind a dictator was removed who had used chemical weapons on civilians and had invaded another country. We should have just got rid of him the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Go see the pictures of dead kids.

As for Blair it will never happen as the grass roots Labour party/Unions will never have him back, their parting shot was electing Ed instead of David as leader.

I thought he was on the whole a good PM, he totally revived the NHS after Thatcher for starters.

Lagamorph wrote:To be honest I'm far more concerned about communist dictatorships like China (and let's face it, Russia ) having WMD's than a sparsely populated desert country.

Makes no sense whatsoever. China are a part of the international trade community and are a well organised nation with structured governance and clear policy goals. Clearly such weapons are far safer in their hands than in some less well developed country with a disfunctional government where terrorists, answerable to no nation, could wrestle control of them.

Lagamorph wrote:So he strawberry floats up the country and now that we're finally getting his mess cleaned up he wants to come back and strawberry float it up all over again?

Yes, the tories have done well getting us out of recession and reducing the need for borrowing... oh... Well, still, at least he and his and his millionaire cabinet are giving those entitled peasants what for. Jolly good show.

Edit - just realised these comments were both from Lagamorph after posting.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I'm defending Blair or his government, no. I hold them as complicity within in the neoliberal scourge that has devestated the world economy and damaged, often ended, many human lives. However, I find it harder to feel any sympathy for those who continue to support such blinkered ideology even after it has been starkly disproven.