UK Parliament to investigate Blair

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Back on topic:

 

If Balair pushed for false documents to justify war, he should lose his job. Personally, I think that he didn't, and even if he did, no way is he gonna lose his job.

 

Also, the UN acts as a policing unit for the civilised world. If it disbands, its gonna cause a lot more harm than good, as it will leave one less obstacle in the path of trigger-happy governments.

[Guest DrTom]

where's the evidence? Where's The WMD?

We're still looking, and probably will be for some time. Considering that Iraq is the size of California, it's going to take a while to search it. We've already found several mobile labs, though, and I'm sure we've gotten something productive out of the scientists we've had in custody.

 

But even if no evidence of WMD turns up (which I seriously doubt will be the case), we still did the right thing in removing a psychotic dictator and supporter of terrorism from power.

 

and for a country that posed a "significant threat" to America you sure won the war with light casualties...and have the casualties you did have were caused by your own troops.

The threat was never in respect to their military vs. ours. The threat was in Iraq's development of WMD, which stil could be unleased on our troops in the area, and their potential to develop nuclear weapons. Thank the French for selling them a nuclear reactor when it was clear they didn't need it for power.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

well i thought the own troops line was kind of funny.

 

anyway, my question for Marney, who seems to know these things, is whatever happened with the labs? I remember during the tail end of the war when squads were (literally) stumbling over them, but I never heard any follow-up. Were they already cleaned out?

 

EDIT: And Tom, I love my country and everything, but we aren't exactly in the position to yell at other countries for selling dangerous loonies weapons.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Thank the French for selling them a nuclear reactor when it was clear they didn't need it for power.

Of course, the US voiced no objections to this sale, and joined the near-unanimous criticism of Israel's attack against it, one of the few times in history they have officially condemned Israel on the international scene. No one cared about Hussein back in 1980 when this happened, in fact I bet the majority of people in the US, had they been asked, would have looked favorably upon him given his disputes with the US's new enemy at the time, Iran.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

But even if no evidence of WMD turns up (which I seriously doubt will be the case), we still did the right thing in removing a psychotic dictator and supporter of terrorism from power.

 

I personally agree, but that's not really the issue here as far as Britain is concerned. There was a lot more apprehension in England about going to war, and Blair had to do a lot of hard work to convince people, even many in his own party, to support it. It could be the case that many members of parliament are feeling deceived and manipulated right now, and if Blair doesn't do some effective damage control he could see himself on the wrong end of a no confidence vote. If the opposition Tories (who generally supported the war but would do anything to stick it to Blair) banded together with dissatisfied Labour MPs, Blair could see his government come crashing down.

[Guest DrTom]

Of course, the US voiced no objections to this sale, and joined the near-unanimous criticism of Israel's attack against it...

And as for why, you answered you own implicit question with...

No one cared about Hussein back in 1980 when this happened, in fact I bet the majority of people in the US, had they been asked, would have looked favorably upon him given his disputes with the US's new enemy at the time, Iran. 

Which is why dragging up foreign policy decisions of the past doesn't really do any good. Regimes were different, attitudes were different, and world politics were different, and trying to compare events across eras like that just reeks of moral relativism.

[Guest DrTom]

I personally agree, but that's not really the issue here as far as Britain is concerned. 

True, but CWM's post was his usual anti-war, anti-American screed, which is the sentiment I was addressing. Blair looks to have been dropped in a nice kettle of hot water, and while I don't think he deserves to be there, it might be hard for him to get out of this one.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Of course, the US voiced no objections to this sale, and joined the near-unanimous criticism of Israel's attack against it...

And as for why, you answered you own implicit question with...

No one cared about Hussein back in 1980 when this happened, in fact I bet the majority of people in the US, had they been asked, would have looked favorably upon him given his disputes with the US's new enemy at the time, Iran. 

Which is why dragging up foreign policy decisions of the past doesn't really do any good. Regimes were different, attitudes were different, and world politics were different, and trying to compare events across eras like that just reeks of moral relativism.

Hey, I agree, my point was for these reasons people shouldn't be criticizing France for decisions they made without 20 years of hindsight just like they shouldn't criticize the US because they supported someone 20 years ago who 10 years later started acting like an asshole. It's like the 1984 passage "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" brought to real life. Past decisions cannot in general be criticized by present day situations.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Keep in mind that the buildup for war was 14 months. Plenty of time for Iraq to hide and smuggle WMD's out of the country.

[Guest JMA]

Regimes were different, attitudes were different, and world politics were different, and trying to compare events across eras like that just reeks of moral relativism.

How does it reek of moral relativism? Moral relativism is the belief that no culture is savage, right? So, how does that relate to this?

[Guest JMA]

Hey, I agree, my point was for these reasons people shouldn't be criticizing France for decisions they made without 20 years of hindsight just like they shouldn't criticize the US because they supported someone 20 years ago who 10 years later started acting like an asshole. It's like the 1984 passage "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" brought to real life. Past decisions cannot in general be criticized by present day situations.

I agree fully.

[Guest JMA]

Keep in mind that the buildup for war was 14 months. Plenty of time for Iraq to hide and smuggle WMD's out of the country.

That is a possibility. Right now we just don't know. Where exactly could they transport the weapons to for safe-keeping? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? You could also use this same argument for Iraq not having WMDs. They had a long build-up so you think they would have had them ready in case of an attack. Anyways, I don't think Iraq has had any WMDs since the eighties.

 

I could be wrong, though.

[Guest Vyce]

Keep in mind that the buildup for war was 14 months. Plenty of time for Iraq to hide and smuggle WMD's out of the country.

That is a possibility. Right now we just don't know. Where exactly could they transport the weapons to for safe-keeping? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?

Syria. There have been rumors for some time that Hussein was stockpiling weapons in the Syrian desert.

 

You could also use this same argument for Iraq not having WMDs. They had a long build-up so you think they would have had them ready in case of an attack. Anyways, I don't think Iraq has had any WMDs since the eighties.

 

I could be wrong, though.

 

The problem, though, is that virtually every intelligence organization worth a damn has information that he DID have WMD as recently as the 90s. I mean, NO ONE going into the war was disputing that he had them - not even the U.N. The dispute was whether he had gotten rid of them, but the entire purpose of the inspectors was that everyone knew he had a lot of bad shit, but he had given no evidence that he had gotten rid of it (and he wasn't exactly the type of guy whose word we could trust if he said he got rid of it all). But let's play devil's advocate and say that he got rid of them - the problem is that he never offered any concrete evidence that he disposed of them (at least, no hard evidence that he got rid of the quantities of those weapons that everyone KNOWS he had).

 

So even though anti-Bush & Blair folks, and the anti-war crowd, can argue that the WMD reason was someone trumped up (I would believe that over the theory that either administration outright lied), but it's hard to really damn either Bush or Blair because ultimately if it's discovered that Saddam didn't have any WMD or had fewer than believed, neither had any hard evidence to support that going into the war.

 

This would then be a major failing of the intelligence community, and heads would definitely roll, but again - it would be hard to damn Blair or Bush because at worst they could just shrug their shoulders and say, "We acted on what they told us was good intelligence."

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I personally agree, but that's not really the issue here as far as Britain is concerned. 

True, but CWM's post was his usual anti-war, anti-American screed, which is the sentiment I was addressing. Blair looks to have been dropped in a nice kettle of hot water, and while I don't think he deserves to be there, it might be hard for him to get out of this one.

I'm not anti-American. I'm anti Bush Government, I'm anti-unnecassary war too. If you find WMD then i'll be the first to say that Hussein got what he deserved. But so far you've came up empty.

[Guest JMA]

I've never seen any indication of CWM being anti-American. Being anti-Bush does NOT make you anti-American. Period.

[Guest DrTom]

I'm not anti-American. I'm anti Bush Government

Fair enough, but I think you've walked the line pretty closely a few times.

 

If you find WMD then i'll be the first to say that Hussein got what he deserved.

How has he not gotten what he deserved, even without overwhelming evidence of WMD?

 

IMO, he's still alive, so he hasn't truly gotten what he deserved yet: an ignominious death and a pauper's grave. But I'm sure we're still working on that part.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

If you find WMD then i'll be the first to say that Hussein got what he deserved. But so far you've came up empty.

How would you feel if it was the horrible human rights violations, that where the main push for war, and the WMD's where of second nature? It's hypothetically speaking, but it's something I was curious about.

[Guest Vyce]

I'm not anti-American. I'm anti Bush Government,

Welcome to how we conservatives felt for 8 years under Clinton.

 

How's it working for you? Annoying, isn't it? Just gets under your skin sometimes. Well, your turn to deal with it now!

[Guest JMA]

Welcome to how we conservatives felt for 8 years under Clinton.

 

How's it working for you? Annoying, isn't it? Just gets under your skin sometimes. Well, your turn to deal with it now!

I don't really think Clinton was a liberal. One of the reasons Republicans hated him was because he moved the Democratic party to the center. Anyways, I never cared for Clinton or politics in general when he was in office. It just didn't matter to me THEN. Man, was I ever a slacker...but that's neither here nor there. Anyways, we had eight years of a conservative Republican (Reagan), four years of ANOTHER conservative Republican, and eight years of a moderate Democrat.

 

Seems to me conservative Republicans have little, if anything, to complain about. I myself simply want a President who isn't a religious fundamentalist or a nationalist. That's all.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

All Blair has to do is release the evidence that he insists he has. His recent line of defence was "there's no evidence that there aren't any WMDs", which is pretty feeble.

 

Its likely Saddam had some nasty stuff lying around, but if no one can find it and he didnt even try to use it defence of his country, how much of a threat was it to the UK?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I don't really think Clinton was a liberal. One of the reasons Republicans hated him was because he moved the Democratic party to the center.

Clinton as always been a liberal. He was just smart enough to act more moderate when he was President.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

He's really not much of a liberal... he's a pro-business centrist.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

He's really not much of a liberal... he's a pro-business centrist.

Clinton was a "centrist" --- but Bush Sr. was a conservative?

 

Okaaaaaaay.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Bush Sr. wasn't really a neocon either. He was more right wing than Clinton, though, especially on taxes.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Also, if you'll remember the Gingrichian "Contract With America" -- the neocon manifesto, if you will -- you'll realize that most of those planks were taken up by Clinton.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Bush Sr. wasn't really a neocon either. He was more right wing than Clinton, though, especially on taxes.

Bush Sr. raising taxes less than Clinton makes him more of a conservative? Bush Sr. was a MODERATE --- Clinton spoke like a moderate but what he supported early in his Presidency definitely was liberal.

 

And, then after 1994, he learned that he was best off not really proposing one single imporant thing --- and did so with remarkable aplomb.

 

He "took" the conservatives' planks in the Contract because, well, they did kind of slap the snot out of the Dems in 1994.

 

He didn't agree with any of it. He simply liked power.

-=Mike --- Who wonders if Clinton supporters realizes how many people have to be liars for him to be a honest or even remotely honorable man

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Bush Sr. cut taxes until he literally couldn't anymore. You're utterly mistaken.

 

Bush Sr. was ideologically blind as it was, though... so he's not a great example. However, Clinton's only two "liberal" initiatives -- that is, gays in the military and universal healthcare -- were literally abhorrations in his spectrum of politics. The guy was primarily out to protect his interests and the interests of his business partners, ala Bush. However, Bush took himself a step farther towards conservativism by pushing deregulation of our infrastructure, whereas Clinton simply pushed it in other countries (that is, vis a vis globalization and the World Bank).

 

I think you're utterly idiotic by supporting the right wing attack machine and then calling CLINTON an unhonorable man... from the very start of his presidency, the republicans used dirty, unethical means to attempt to defame and entrap Clinton. Is that honor? Is that honest?

[Guest Vyce]

I myself simply want a President who isn't a religious fundamentalist or a nationalist. That's all.

You better be prepared to wait a LONG time.

 

I think you're utterly idiotic by supporting the right wing attack machine and then calling CLINTON an unhonorable man... from the very start of his presidency, the republicans used dirty, unethical means to attempt to defame and entrap Clinton. Is that honor? Is that honest?

 

Are we still arguing this 3 years after the man is gone? Can we finally let this go?

 

The only person I remotely feel bad for in the whole entire Clinton mess was Ken Star.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The only person I remotely feel bad for in the whole entire Clinton mess was Ken Star.

 

And why? The guy got a cushy post after the Republicans pushed for a highly regarded Republican lawyer by the name of Robert Fiske, who was the original Independant Council, to be fired after he found NOTHING WRONG with the Whitewater affair. The guy knew exactly what his role was, and he knew what was gonna happen. I shed no tears for Ken Starr, especially with his role in the entire thing.

[Guest Vyce]

Well of course you don't. I'd be utterly shocked if you did.

 

I don't feel bad for him NOW, frankly, but I felt bad for him during the investigation, when he was villified beyond all others (except, perhaps, Linda Tripp) for DARING to actually, you know, investigate a CRIMINAL act that had been committed.