45 minute warning

[stront692]

if saddam hussein had been able to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, surely we wouldnt be here anymore

unequivocal proof that it was a stupid excuse to go to war, cos u knew it was false within the hour

[stront692]

its just that there was an article in the mail yesterday saying blair should resign

quite frankly, i would included to agree

the exact quote is something 'blair is a moron or a liar...


i dont believe him to be a man of low intelligence'

[Richmond Clements]

I don't know about you, but I think it's a bad day when I find myself agreeing with The Mail.

I don't know which is worse, a PM who is lying bare faced to the people, or one who is so imcompetent that he didn't think to ask even basic questions of his advisors.

[stront692]

hmmm, i thought the same thing (about the mail)


i didnt agree with anything else in it though i was just reading it in work cos i was bored and knackered at same time

[VampiraJen]

Well, the 45 minute warning refers to battle filed weapons and not wmd.

tony didn't know this before we went to war.  hoon did, but didn't bother telling this to the pm.

what a bunch of tosspots...

and yet a part of me thinks that blair was genuine in his beliefe that iraq posed a threat, but if america had not wanted this war tony would never have gone into iraq on his own to end the 'threat'.  this makes him a lapdog and a fool.

[Floyd-the-k]

I`d go with lapdog rather than fool. They lied (they being Bush, Blair and, if anyone cares, Howard). The way things are going I`m surprised nobody has claimed that Saddam did launch weapons of mass destruction at the UK but he missed. That`s why they can`t find any in Iraq, the wmds are all at the bottom of the English channel. Or something.

[rc]

Saddam is gone, isn't he?

[VampiraJen]

"The way things are going I`m surprised nobody has claimed that Saddam did launch weapons of mass destruction at the UK but he missed"

Of course!  Now it all makes sense!!!  Didn't you know all of iraq's wmd are on the moon?  that's why bush wants to go there.  Well, not personally, though that is a good place for him.

As for saddam himself, where is he?  Last i saw (on the telly)  he was getting his teeth checked by a nice american doctor-type person.

[stront692]

the story went to suggest that the hutton report was a direct attack on greg dyke by former director general bbc john birt (who is best friends with hutton, the person most likely to be appointed to replace him and the minister in charge of the bbcs aide)

sounds very cagey but as hutton has been close personal friend of birt for years, should he not have disclosed a conflict of interests

[ESCUBRIA]

Tony Blair and Jack Straw -and maybe Campbell too- should be sent to the Hague to be tried as war criminals. That's why the court was set up and why Britain signed up to it: to prevent and judge abuses of power

There seems to be no real accountablity for anything these days, just blame someone less senior who can take the wrap.

[JimBob]

 Except of course they're not war criminals Escubria. Blair lied to us but hey whats new.
 My main concern with it isn't the WMD claim, or the removal of Hussein (which is probably a good thing), its the fact they didn't seem to have  a plan once control was taken.
 I expect our leaders to be duplicitous, I'ld just prefer it if they weren't crap.
 

[rc]

Most armchair Prime Ministers and Generals have plenty to say on Blair and Bush and The People of Iraq, but not a single one is in posession of the full facts nor can come up with a more positive and direct way forward for an unrepressed world than the action that was taken against the rule of Saddam Hussein.

If every adult on the planet was given every single political fact and figure to digest for themselves, it would liklely bring about the collapse of civillisation as we know it.

[Generally Contrary]

We might not be able to give everybody all the facts, but that should be the aim of a democracy (in the same way that the aim of the hospital would be to cure all illness and mend all injuries).

Re: the overthrow of Saddam.  Yes, it is a good thing that he is gone.  But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.  That is the one thing that Iraq ahould have taught us.  It is prefectly reasonable to judge people on their past behaviour.  It was reasonable to assume that Saddam had not changed, that he was still a tyrant and would continue to be so.  This being so, why does anyone assume that the men in charge of parts of the US Government, ex-CIA and Defense Department men, who were perfectly happy being Saddam's allies, who were perefectly happy to associate themselves with right-wing death squads in Latin America, wouldn't behave in such ways once again given the chance.

As we are not going to change the way Iraq is governed in general, it would be silly to suggest alternatives.  What can be done, and what must be done, is the level of scrutiny must be maintained, both in demanding information and offering critical analysis.  Otherwise, why should not the nation-building skills of the CIA, so practised in Latin America, not be deployed now?

[WoD]

rc; I think you're being a little general and unfair with your comments on this.  How people are supposed to gain an understanding of the situation when even 'the people in the know' (Bush, Blair, et al) are now saying that they didn't have the facts I don't know.  

Probably our best bet in situations like this is the press (the more fair and unbiased, but hard-hitting the better).  I, and I would guess most other people, do not have time to disseminate every fact that comes our way (or in this case that fails to come our way), so we look to the press, politicians, our peers, etc. to give clear, succinct and hopefully accurate summaries of the situation.  If we don't get this then we are scuppered.

[rc]

Since the world has been shaken up so violently in the past few years, the pieces are falling where they should be now.

The gloves are off, no-one is messing about anymore and everyone wants results. That goes for leaders, terrorists, democrats and repressed nations.

Money and power will always blight human nature, but I think mankind is beginning to realise its mortality on this planet.

The "free world" is desperate to maintain its position, but also keen to influence other corners of the earth not so fortunate. I support this, through physical action if becomes necessary in reaction to atrocities such as those committed by Saddam Hussein.

Shit, I had more to say on this but need to log-off... perhaps later! ;)