Scumbag Blair's gifts to his children

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

On the whole Iraq debate. I was in favour of removing Saddam.

Saddam and his government were a brutal and oppresive regime. Despicable. Nothing less. I didn't really care if there were WMD, it was a good excuse to get rid of a bad person.

I agree he was despicable, but why did they/we stop at him?. Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe,Charles Taylor and others are/were just as bad.Where do we/they draw the line?, at what point do we/they go in all guns blazing.

What gives us/them the right to be the worlds Police?, what makes us right?

WE did intervene with Charles Taylor which is why there are many african children call 'tony blair'

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

I agree he was despicable, but why did they/we stop at him?. Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe and others are/were just as bad.Where do we/they draw the line?, at what point do we/they go in all guns blazing.

What gives us/them the right to be the worlds Police?, what makes us right?

Of course a fair comment. And I think a deeper question than can be explored by a few posts on here.

The US and especially the UK can only do so much and must pick objectives carfeully. I don't think it is possible to craft an over arching policy to fit the world in such a clear statement.

The fact is, it was pretty easy to remove Saddam, that was done with minimal loss of life (compared to post invasion), especially on the part of the US and UK. It is all a bit theoretical, but had they kept the Iraqi army in place, and actually had a plan for post invasion, they could conceivably have been out of there many years ago.

I do think our government should be looking at ways to remove those you have mentioned, but military force is not the way for them. Invading Zimbabwe would be nuts, it would be seen as a colonial power re-asserting control. That will simply never work. But the government should be applying pressure on other African countries to do something.

As fas as North Korea goes, that is even harder. The largest standing army in the world combined with nuclear weopans. Ouch. Not to mention their friend is the next country that will likely achieve superpower status. I would be looking to shape the next government and contain this one.

But having said all of this, it then becomes a dangerous path of what is an oppresive regime, what isn't, when to act, when not to. Impossible decisions. Can only take them as they come. And at the time of the Iraq decision, Saddam was obviously a vile person, there was the means and will to remove him, I would have done the same.

There is no right or wrong answer to all of this, no black and white. This is just my opinion and based on what I read and see in the media I think I'm in the minority.

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

WE did intervene with Charles Taylor which is why there are many african children call 'tony blair'

Kosovo too, they also have loads of kids called Toni or Tonibler - he visited Kosovo in July to a hero's welcome.

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

WE did intervene with Charles Taylor which is why there are many african children call 'tony blair'

Your right, but we only intervened nearly 10 Years after his crimes started, why do you think that was?...

PasturesNew

StevieJ wrote: »

21 was the big one back then though

Ah yes, I got a 2nd hand single bed. £15.
Oh the good years

Davesnave

StevieJ wrote: »

21 was the big one back then though

Certainly was .........

Steak meal at a Berni Inn, with Black Forest gateau for afters, all washed down with a bottle of Blue Nun.

We knew we had class! :rotfl:

leveller2911

ash28 wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

Kosovo too, they also have loads of kids called Toni or Tonibler - he visited Kosovo in July to a hero's welcome.

Oh yes thats right, Remember seeing on television UN peacekeepers being made to stand and watch (by the UN) as thousands of men ,women and children were marched away and massacred......

Can you explain to me why we play the role of the worlds Police when the crimes are ongoing we stand by and watch as thousands upon thousands of people suffer, mass graves all over the Balkans and yet when peace is found we indite the guilty.Nothing short of perverse.........

If we are going to be the World Police force then why don't we act when these crimes are happening rather than after the mass graves have been filled in, thought the idea was to save people lives rather than indite a few criminals.....

You can't have it both ways.......

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

ash28 wrote: »

Oh yes thats right, Remember seeing on television UN peacekeepers being made to stand and watch (by the UN) as thousands of men ,women and children were marched away and massacred......

Can you explain to me why we play the role of the worlds Police when the crimes are ongoing we stand by and watch as thousands upon thousands of people suffer, mass graves all over the Balkans and yet when peace is found we indite the guilty.Nothing short of perverse.........

If we are going to be the World Police force then why don't we act when these crimes are happening rather than after the mass graves have been filled in, thought the idea was to save people lives rather than indite a few criminals.....

You can't have it both ways.......

I'm not quite sure I understand what you would propose. At first I thought you were advocating staying out of the affairs of any other sovereign state. But now it seems like you are not happy because action was not taken early enough?

These things are not black and white. I can't even begin to comprehend the depths and complexities of the politics that must go on to make something like the intervention in Kosovo a reality. The UK is not in a position to act alone and so requires others to act in the same way.

I struggle to understand the point of your posts. You seem almost angry at every decision made, but yet you offer no alternative? What would you do? Take Iran, that is the next hot coal that is coming our way. More complex than Iraq. What would you suggest as a course of action there?

leveller2911

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Of course a fair comment. And I think a deeper question than can be explored by a few posts on here.


The fact is, it was pretty easy to remove Saddam, that was done with minimal loss of life (compared to post invasion), especially on the part of the US and UK.

Would be far less loses if we had invaded Zimbabwe


I do think our government should be looking at ways to remove those you have mentioned, but military force is not the way for them. Invading Zimbabwe would be nuts, it would be seen as a colonial power re-asserting control. That will simply never work. The government should be applying pressure on other African countries to do something.

Many Islamic Countries did'nt agree with invading Iraq,We did apply pressure to neighbouring Iraq so whats the difference?

But having said all of this, it then becomes a dangerous path of what is an oppresive regime, what isn't, when to act, when not to. Impossible decisions. Can only take them as they come. And at the time of the Iraq decision, Saddam was obviously a vile person, there was the means and will to remove him, I would have done the same.

There is no right or wrong answer to all of this, no black and white. This is just my opinion and based on what I read and see in the media I think I'm in the minority.

The main reason by far that Iraq was invaded was for OIL end of .When all said and done it boils down to money, dirty ,filthy business war....

leveller2911

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

I'm not quite sure I understand what you would propose. At first I thought you were advocating staying out of the affairs of any other sovereign state. But now it seems like you are not happy because action was not taken early enough?

My point was if you invaded Iraq there is NO moral excuse not to invade any other despot regime.Who do we think we are to choose who is to be bought to justice and who is left to kill millions of their own people?, call a spade a spade Procrast, its all down to money and political Policies and not done for the Just reasons of saving lives

I struggle to understand the point of your posts. You seem almost angry at every decision made, but yet you offer no alternative? What would you do? Take Iran, that is the next hot coal that is coming our way. More complex than Iraq. What would you suggest as a course of action there?

My views are quite simple,either we do the job properly with NO exceptions or we understand that we are now a small Island Nation and act like one.

You seem happy to advocate going around the world being a lacky to the US and its policies rather than doing the right thing wherever and whoever the despot is.Playing God

I am angry when we are not consistant, picking and choosing is wrong.We won't kick the !!!!!! out of North Korea because they can fight back but we will invade Iraq because theirs only the National Guard thats can supposedly fight.The hypocracy of it has no bounds.

Why don't we invade Burma? I mean Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest in Burma , thousands have dissapeared,despot regime but no invasion to free the masses, why?......Again my answer is money, they arent oil rich...