Bliar Bliar pants on fire!

[Jon_in_london]

The beebs website has some interesting quotes from the PM about the non-existant WMD that Saddam didnt have:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2955632.stm


"(Saddam's) weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running....


Wither wmd tony?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The beebs website has some interesting quotes from the PM about the non-existant WMD that Saddam didnt have:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2955632.stm



Wither wmd tony?

In fairness to Tony Blair, he did set out fairly clearly in this speach of 17th February (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6181) that WMD were not his only reason for wanting war in Iraq.

And I have given you the geo-political reason - the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction and its link with terrorism. And I believe it.

If I am honest about it, there is another reason why I feel so strongly about this issue. It is a reason less to do with my being Prime Minister than being a member of the Labour Party, to do with the progressive politics in which we believe. The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the United Nations mandate on Weapons of Mass Destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.

I think he sincerely believed the weapons were there. Whether he believed they were there in as large quantities or were as much of a threat to "us" as he made out, is another question.

Graham

[Ian Osborne]

He's either lied or been lied to - either way, we can do without him as Prime Minister.

Thanks for the link, Jon - I'm using the quotes one at a time in my sig.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
He's either lied or been lied to - either way, we can do without him as Prime Minister.

Thanks for the link, Jon - I'm using the quotes one at a time in my sig.

Ian, the first quote you're using for your signature:

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also." Tony Blair, House of Commons, 10th April 2002

Taking this statement in isolation, what exactly is your problem with it?

Do you contend that:

a) Saddam Hussein's regime was not despicable?

b) Saddam Hussein was not even developing wmd (note that there is no mention of what stage his developments were at)

c) That SH was not a threat to his own people?

d) That, had he ever actuall developed WMD he would not have been a threat to other nations?

Graham

[Mr Manifesto]

"d) That, had he ever actuall developed WMD he would not have been a threat to other nations?"

This lead me to think of an interesting question- one I do not know the answer to.

Does anyone know where one could find out which nation has killed the most people not from their own country since WWII?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
"d) That, had he ever actuall developed WMD he would not have been a threat to other nations?"

This lead me to think of an interesting question- one I do not know the answer to.

Does anyone know where one could find out which nation has killed the most people not from their own country since WWII?

Surely that would have to be the States for Vietnam and Korea. Other than "civil" wars in Africa and Bosnia, etc there haven't been any other high casualty conflicts, have there?

Graham

[Graham]

Oh, the Soviet campaign in Afganistan suddenlt springs to mind and Chechnya too.

There might be some competition there but it would be far harder to get reliable casualty figures, IMO.

Graham

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Graham

Do you contend that:

a) Saddam Hussein's regime was not despicable?

b) Saddam Hussein was not even developing wmd (note that there is no mention of what stage his developments were at)

c) That SH was not a threat to his own people?

d) That, had he ever actuall developed WMD he would not have been a threat to other nations?

Graham

a- no problem. So are the regimes of dozens of other countries. If thats reason enough to go to war, why arent we mobilizing troops against [insert name of country ruled by despicable regime here]

b- I have seen no evidence that Saddam was developing any WMD since since 1991 unless you call Al-samoud missiles wmd.

c- See a.

d- yes, and if Equatorial Guinea developed WMDs, they could also be a threat to their neighbours. Should we invade them too?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


a- no problem. So are the regimes of dozens of other countries. If thats reason enough to go to war, why arent we mobilizing troops against [insert name of country ruled by despicable regime here]

b- I have seen no evidence that Saddam was developing any WMD since since 1991 unless you call Al-samoud missiles wmd.

c- See a.

d- yes, and if Equatorial Guinea developed WMDs, they could also be a threat to their neighbours. Should we invade them too?

I wasn't trying to take a position on whether we should or should not have gone to war (personally, for what it's worth, I think not). Ian was presenting that quote as evidence that Blair either lied or was lied to and I wanted to know why.

Your answer do not address that point.

Graham

[Jon_in_london]

Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also." Tony Blair, House of Commons, 10th April 2002


That bit.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Graham
I wasn't trying to take a position on whether we should or should not have gone to war (personally, for what it's worth, I think not). Ian was presenting that quote as evidence that Blair either lied or was lied to and I wanted to know why.

I was presenting the entire list of quotes on the given link in that light, not just the one in my sig. To answer your questions, though:

a) Yes, he's despicable, but no more so than he was in the Eighties when the West supported him and no more so than many other tin-pot dictatorships. The nature of his regime is not a credible war motive.

b) If we have any evidence for this, let's present it. I find it incredible that we appeared to know enough about his weapons programs to justify going to war against him, but not enough to find evidence for them now the war is over.

c) See 'A'

d) Too hypothetical. He was much less of a threat to his neighbours than at any time during his reign. Surely it's ridiculous to argue we should invade on the off-chance that he has a WMD programme for which we seem to have no evidence?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
"d) That, had he ever actuall developed WMD he would not have been a threat to other nations?"

This lead me to think of an interesting question- one I do not know the answer to.

Does anyone know where one could find out which nation has killed the most people not from their own country since WWII?

How many were killed in the Iran/Iraq war? That lasted a while.

[BillyTK]

he is developing weapons of mass destruction,
(Saddam's) weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing
Both quotes give the idea that there is a clear and present danger which requires military action. It strikes me that if the intelligence was that compelling, physical evidence would've been found by now. I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein would've been a threat if he'd acquired nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, but if we accept as legitimate the claim that 90% of Saddam's weapons programmes were destroyed between 91-98 by weapons inspectors, it raises the question of just what state exactly his weapons programme was at prior to the invasion.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

but if we accept as legitimate the claim that 90% of Saddam's weapons programmes were destroyed between 91-98 by weapons inspectors, it raises the question of just what state exactly his weapons programme was at prior to the invasion.

Blair and Bush said there were masses of WMD in Iraq. Saddam said there were none. There appear to be none.

Disturbing isnt it, when a tyrant like Saddam is more trustworthy than the leaders of the free world.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Blair and Bush said there were masses of WMD in Iraq. Saddam said there were none. There appear to be none.

Disturbing isnt it, when a tyrant like Saddam is more trustworthy than the leaders of the free world.

Yes... and no. Saddam's a dictator so we don't expect him to be any better than he is, whereas IMO because our leaders are leaders of democratic societies, they have greater responsibilities, particularly wrt issues of trust, and need to be held to account on that basis, as well as being treated to at least the same scrutiny and suspicion we give to dictators.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
b) If we have any evidence for this, let's present it. I find it incredible that we appeared to know enough about his weapons programs to justify going to war against him, but not enough to find evidence for them now the war is over.

Thank you! This is a very good expression of why I consider Bush and Blair to be dishonest.

It's not that I doubt that Saddam was attempting to develop WMD. It's that the administration made it sound as though it had specific, detailed intelligence as to the disposition and probable location of these weapons, as well as evidence of Saddam's intention to use them against Israel, the U.S., or other countries in the region. This was used as a justification for war.

Now that the initial fighting is over, it is clear that we had no reliable intelligence on any WMD in Iraq. Whether there actually are any is completely beside the point -- I wouldn't be surprised if there are, somewhere. But Bush and Blair have railroaded their countries into a war on false pretenses, and that is what I have a problem with.

What's more, I don't even understand why they bothered with the false pretenses -- although I disagreed with the timing of the war, there were plenty of rational, ethical, and undisputed reasons to take out Saddam. He was a tyrant and a butcher, and if the U.N. Security Council doesn't consider that reason enough to intervene on the behalf of his people, I don't see why we should associate with such a bunch of wishy-washy bureaucrats.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh
He was a tyrant and a butcher, and if the U.N. Security Council doesn't consider that reason enough to intervene on the behalf of his people, I don't see why we should associate with such a bunch of wishy-washy bureaucrats.

Jeremy

Ummm... Gulf War 1; Shiite uprising; Oil for *What ever the hell the UK and US decide Iraq can have* Programme for instance? Saddam's people were actually doing quite well out of his rule; it was the other ethnicities in Iraq who really copped it. Btw Turkey's recent history makes for interesting reading...

[rikzilla]

Yeah, Tony's a lying bugger!

Oust him then!

Let's get a good honest Tory into #10 Downing Street!!

:D

-z

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Yeah, Tony's a lying bugger!

Oust him then!

Let's get a good honest Tory into #10 Downing Street!!

:D

-z

Yes, and while we are about it, lets discover a spherical cube!

:D :p

[corplinx]

Amazing how you brits are lynching Blari for ridding the world of another mass-grave digging leader. And why? Because the tons of agents we knew Saddam had in 1998 haven't been accounted for yet.

Shame on you. Tell Mr. Blair to come to America where leadership is appreciated.

[Br000chie]

Originally posted by toddjh


......
What's more, I don't even understand why they bothered with the false pretenses -- although I disagreed with the timing of the war, there were plenty of rational, ethical, and undisputed reasons to take out Saddam. He was a tyrant and a butcher, and if the U.N. Security Council doesn't consider that reason enough to intervene on the behalf of his people, I don't see why we should associate with such a bunch of wishy-washy bureaucrats.

Jeremy

If Blair had gone to war on purely humanitarian grounds then I might have supported him in his efforts. However, in order for the war to be legal then this would have required a whole new set of UN resolutions to be passed. IMO, they had set a date for the war that ruled out the option of seeking new resolutions and thus they made the case for WMD. Since 1441 mentioned "serious consequences" then this gave them some legal standing for going to war although Blair sought to clarify this further with a modified resolution and failed.

The war was 'fait accomplis' prior to any discussion and WMD was the charade that gave it international legality.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by corplinx
Amazing how you brits are lynching Blari for ridding the world of another mass-grave digging leader. And why? Because the tons of agents we knew Saddam had in 1998 haven't been accounted for yet.

Shame on you. Tell Mr. Blair to come to America where leadership is appreciated.

Because we've got so many more grave-digging tyrants (http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm) to get to yet.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by corplinx
Shame on you. Tell Mr. Blair to come to America where leadership is appreciated.

If that's how you define leadership, who exactly was Pres. Bush taking his orders from? And will the US give Blair a full-time post as "Washington's no. 1 ambassador"?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Yeah, Tony's a lying bugger!

Oust him then!

Let's get a good honest Tory into #10 Downing Street!!

:D

-z

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes, and while we are about it, lets discover a spherical cube!

:D :p

*rotflmafao!*