Blair has no regrets for Iraqi war

[Topaz]

Former PM Blair says he has no regrets for the Iraqi war or Hussein being take out. Well, what else is he suppose to say when he and Bush did all the deciding!! Blair says that Hussein was evil and the people are better off without him. I don't think most of the people of Iraq would agree to that right now. Their lives are a living hell, were they are without food, water, hydro and jobs and the country physically a mess. I agree that Hussein was wrong to gas the his own people but it was even a greater wrong for the US to make dealings with him to give him the means to kill them. I do think the US foreign polices has made the Middle-East worse than better. Too many people have died for what?? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100129/world/international_us_britain_iraq_blair

[bush_cheney2004]

Good for PM Blair.....it was the right decision then and remains so. Were you worried about the poor Iraqis when they were bombed, sanctioned, and starved to death by UN resolutions? Canada helped to enforce them!

Edited January 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

Former PM Blair says he has no regrets for the Iraqi war or Hussein being take out. Well, what else is he suppose to say when he and Bush did all the deciding!! Blair says that Hussein was evil and the people are better off without him. I don't think most of the people of Iraq would agree to that right now. Their lives are a living hell, were they are without food, water, hydro and jobs and the country physically a mess. I agree that Hussein was wrong to gas the his own people but it was even a greater wrong for the US to make dealings with him to give him the means to kill them. I do think the US foreign polices has made the Middle-East worse than better. Too many people have died for what?? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100129/world/international_us_britain_iraq_blair

Are you ignorant or are you just an airhead.

You provide me a source which states who killed more people Bush/Blair or Hussein?

You provide me a source that states that the Iraqi's had more freedom under Hussein than Bush/Blair

You provide me a source that states that living under Hussein is better than what they have now and will have in the future

[bloodyminded]

Are you ignorant or are you just an airhead.

You provide me a source which states who killed more people Bush/Blair or Hussein?

You provide me a source that states that the Iraqi's had more freedom under Hussein than Bush/Blair

You provide me a source that states that living under Hussein is better than what they have now and will have in the future

Neither you nor I knows what will be in the Iraqi's future.

Not even the magnificent humanitarian heroes, Bush and Blair--so noble they were forced unwillingly to lie their populations into war--can tell us with certainty what the future will hold.

What we DO know is the violence continues. Mostly unreported, but continuing along quite merrily.

Oh, but you KNOW. Bill Kristol or some other effete little pseudo-intellectual sycophant has told you so, after all.

Or maybe Mark Steyn. This oily little genius's predictions have been excellent so far--like that Iraq would be a peaceful and orderly tourist haven by spring of 2004.

I guess you're just taking the predictions of the raving reactionaries and moving them back a few years--a game you will no doubt play forever, while you predict that by 2051 Iraq will be a prosperous and peaceful democracy.

And if a new dictator, a new Saddam comes along? Well, so long as he's obedient to Washington, Bush and Blair (and their successors, of course) will have little or nothing bad to say about the tyrant. The Western leaders haver no principled objections to tyrants, so long as they stay the proper course.

We DO know this...because it's based on direct, incontestable history...unlike your speculation, which is based on....religious fervour of some sort? I can't say for sure, because you don't tell us which fortune teller you've read, which thrown bones you've examined for portents.

Edited January 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

And if a new dictator, a new Saddam comes along? Well, so long as he's obedient to Washington, Bush and Blair (and their successors, of course) will have little or nothing bad to say about the tyrant. The Western leaders haver no principled objections to tyrants, so long as they stay the proper course.

I don't think you'll get an argument there. Blair is still saying he has no regrets about the war because taking Saddam out, because he was a threat, was the right thing to do. And by "a threat," I'm sure he means to the western world/ie: world at large.

[Born Free]

Of course Blair would say he had no regrets about lying the Brits into a war. Thats what politicians and former politicians do.

[Born Free]

Neither you nor I knows what will be in the Iraqi's future.

The future will include the continuing power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The same struggle that existed when Saddam was in power.

[blueblood]

Neither you nor I knows what will be in the Iraqi's future.

Not even the magnificent humanitarian heroes, Bush and Blair--so noble they were forced unwillingly to lie their populations into war--can tell us with certainty what the future will hold.

What we DO know is the violence continues. Mostly unreported, but continuing along quite merrily.

Oh, but you KNOW. Bill Kristol or some other effete little pseudo-intellectual sycophant has told you so, after all.

Or maybe Mark Steyn. This oily little genius's predictions have been excellent so far--like that Iraq would be a peaceful and orderly tourist haven by spring of 2004.

I guess you're just taking the predictions of the raving reactionaries and moving them back a few years--a game you will no doubt play forever, while you predict that by 2051 Iraq will be a prosperous and peaceful democracy.

And if a new dictator, a new Saddam comes along? Well, so long as he's obedient to Washington, Bush and Blair (and their successors, of course) will have little or nothing bad to say about the tyrant. The Western leaders haver no principled objections to tyrants, so long as they stay the proper course.

We DO know this...because it's based on direct, incontestable history...unlike your speculation, which is based on....religious fervour of some sort? I can't say for sure, because you don't tell us which fortune teller you've read, which thrown bones you've examined for portents.

Numbers don't lie. Violence has gone down substansially in Iraq. I'm not hearing very much about American soldiers dying over there these days. Strike 1

Saddam and his henchmen have gotten a fair trial under the new Iraq gov't. Something common Iraqi's never got under the Saddam regime. Strike 2

Every now and again CNN shows the little bright spots of improvement to the daily lives of common Iraqi's and how they are enjoying this freedom. None of that happened under the Saddam regime. Strike 3

For a region coming out of a civil war, Iraq is making progress and is better off than it was under the Saddam regime. It will take some time for Iraq to hopefully become wealthy and successful like Kuwait and Dubai, right now they are on the path to achieve that.

[scorpio]

And by "a threat," I'm sure he means to the western world/ie: world at large.

Please quote someone from the Bush admin say Saddamm possed an imminent threat that required immediate action/war/execution. Oh, and mushrooms clouds don't count. History will show the UN and the rest of the "sane" nations did not go along with this bogus and totally unnecessary war. Follow the money folks, follow the money.

[scorpio]

Numbers don't lie. Violence has gone down substansially in Iraq. I'm not hearing very much about American soldiers dying over there these days. Strike 1

Care to walk down a Bagdhad street? Unprotected?

[Guest American Woman]

Please quote someone from the Bush admin say Saddamm possed an imminent threat that required immediate action/war/execution.

Why would I do that since I'm referring to Blair, and why he says he doesn't have any regrets regarding the Iraq war?

Oh, and mushrooms clouds don't count. History will show the UN and the rest of the "sane" nations did not go along with this bogus and totally unnecessary war. Follow the money folks, follow the money.

Seems to me you're on a completely different topic than that of this thread. This thread is about Blair, and his having no regrets for going to war in Iraq.

[bloodyminded]

Numbers don't lie. Violence has gone down substansially in Iraq. I'm not hearing very much about American soldiers dying over there these days. Strike 1

The violence is down from 2006 levels, sure. It's still an extraordinarily violent place. You don't know this only because you have chosen not to know it.

Saddam and his henchmen have gotten a fair trial under the new Iraq gov't. Something common Iraqi's never got under the Saddam regime. Strike 2

Actually, Saddam's trial was incomplete. A complete trial would have indicted many Western leaders for direct culpability in many of his crimes. Including some actual members of the Executive in charge with prosecuting the war itself.

Every now and again CNN shows the little bright spots of improvement to the daily lives of common Iraqi's and how they are enjoying this freedom. None of that happened under the Saddam regime. Strike 3

Oh, CNN, eh? Well, that proves everything. We also know that life in Haiti was excellent before the quake, because CNN didn't report on the horror-chamber quality of life there.

For a region coming out of a civil war, Iraq is making progress and is better off than it was under the Saddam regime. It will take some time for Iraq to hopefully become wealthy and successful like Kuwait and Dubai, right now they are on the path to achieve that.

For all you know, they are on a path to civil war, or to a new dictatorship. You're just guessing, a guess educated by nothing in history, much less current events.

And by the way, things are seriously uncertain in Dubai as well. And since you brought it up, the place is rife with human rights abuses, especially for the poorly-paid foreign workers. Many have been arrested for peacefully protesting their low wages and shoddy treatment.

Perhaps you mistake "having a lot of money" for "democratic and free and just."

[Born Free]

Numbers don't lie. Violence has gone down substansially in Iraq.

If Blair is right, I would have expected the violence to have been eliminated after the demise of Saddam. Wouldnt you?

Violence in Iraq seems to be humming along on a day to day basis at about the same clip as it was before the invasion.....perhaps even higher. Its simply taking a different form.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Born Free

[scorpio]

Why would I do that since I'm referring to Blair, and why he says he doesn't have any regrets regarding the Iraq war?

Seems to me you're on a completely different topic than that of this thread. This thread is about Blair, and his having no regrets for going to war in Iraq.

Ok, so where was the imminent threat to Britain? Blair only went because of Bush, and that's why I mentioned him in the thread.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok, so where was the imminent threat to Britain? Blair only went because of Bush, and that's why I mentioned him in the thread.

You'd have to ask Blair that. I'm only pointing out that Blair doesn't regret the war because he thought, and still thinks, Saddam was a threat to us. So evidently no, Blair went of his own accord, not because of Bush. He went because he believed, and still believes, that Saddam was a threat to Britain/the world.

[eyeball]

He went because he believed, and still believes, that Saddam was a threat to Britain/the world.

Notice that he didn't know that Saddam was a threat, he merely believed it. The fact that much of the world didn't believe it compelled him to pretend he did know and to pretend he had the evidence of WMD's to prove it.

I bet that Blair does have regrets - deep one's that likely require copious amounts of sleeping pills to overcome.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, so where was the imminent threat to Britain? Blair only went because of Bush, and that's why I mentioned him in the thread.

Nope....PM Blair had a longer tenure with Saddam's regime and threat than Bush. Australia's PM also agreed to regime change, which was a matter of US Public Law before Bush was ever elected.

[Born Free]

You'd have to ask Blair that. I'm only pointing out that Blair doesn't regret the war because he thought, and still thinks, Saddam was a threat to us.

So says he....

[blueblood]

Care to walk down a Bagdhad street? Unprotected?

I like my chances now vs. when Saddam was in charge.

here's one for you

Go to Iraq and trash the gov't now vs. ten years ago.

Iraqi's are able to protest now, under Saddam they'd be gassed.

Bloodyminded wrote:

The violence is down from 2006 levels, sure. It's still an extraordinarily violent place. You don't know this only because you have chosen not to know it.

Thank you for accepting that violence has gone down. Iraq was also a very violent place if you vocally spoke out about Saddam's gov't.

Actually, Saddam's trial was incomplete. A complete trial would have indicted many Western leaders for direct culpability in many of his crimes. Including some actual members of the Executive in charge with prosecuting the war itself.

That's a better trial than the kurds and his political opponents got...

Last I checked the war was legal...

Oh, CNN, eh? Well, that proves everything. We also know that life in Haiti was excellent before the quake, because CNN didn't report on the horror-chamber quality of life there.

The fact that CNN roams around Iraq doing objective reporting is a large step up from Saddam, everyone knows that Haiti was a shit show, however that shit show that was Haiti was a freer country than Iraq under Saddam.

For all you know, they are on a path to civil war, or to a new dictatorship. You're just guessing, a guess educated by nothing in history, much less current events.

And by the way, things are seriously uncertain in Dubai as well. And since you brought it up, the place is rife with human rights abuses, especially for the poorly-paid foreign workers. Many have been arrested for peacefully protesting their low wages and shoddy treatment.

Perhaps you mistake "having a lot of money" for "democratic and free and just."

Seems to me Iraq is taking its baby steps into a functioning democracy nicely. But since you figure since the Americans were involved its doomed to failure. How's South Korea doing these days?

The people in Dubai have it far better than people in Iraq living under Saddam. To suggest that living under a murderous dictator is better than living in other developing countries is flat out ignorant.

[Guest American Woman]

Notice that he didn't know that Saddam was a threat, he merely believed it. The fact that much of the world didn't believe it compelled him to pretend he did know and to pretend he had the evidence of WMD's to prove it.

No one knew for certain that Hitler was a threat, either, until he started acting. I think the point is that Blair didn't want to wait like we waited with Hitler; he wanted to take him out before it got to that point. So of course all one can do is "believe" something under those circumstances, unless they are willing to wait until it's too late -- when they'd "know" for certain that Saddam is a threat to the world because of some terrible action on his part. I'm not saying I agree with Blair, but this thread is about him and why he doesn't have any regrets, and in that respect, I understand what he's saying.

I bet that Blair does have regrets - deep one's that likely require copious amounts of sleeping pills to overcome.

I'm not so sure he does have regrets. If he truly believes Saddam was a threat and could have caused great harm, why would he regret taking him out?

[myata]

I'm only pointing out that Blair doesn't regret the war because he thought, and still thinks, Saddam was a threat to us. So evidently no, Blair went of his own accord, not because of Bush. He went because he believed, and still believes, that Saddam was a threat to Britain/the world.

I agree, Blair & Bush has shown us that it's still OK to make war if only one believes (no rational evidence needed or necessary) that it's the right thing to do. Guess nothing much changes (compare to earlier crusades, colonisations, annexations, retaliations, pacifications etc where uncounted wars were made necessary solely by beliefs of their perpetrators).

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree, Blair & Bush has shown us that it's still OK to make war if only one believes (no rational evidence needed or necessary) that it's the right thing to do. Guess nothing much changes (compare to earlier crusades, colonisations, annexations, retaliations, pacifications etc where uncounted wars were made necessary solely by beliefs of their perpetrators).

Why would you believe otherwise? For Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton and Chirac, it was OK to make war in Serbia for much less than that.

[myata]

Why would you believe otherwise? For Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton and Chirac, it was OK to make war in Serbia for much less than that.

Another good example.

[Born Free]

Why would you believe otherwise? For Chretien, Blair, Schroeder, Clinton and Chirac, it was OK to make war in Serbia for much less than that.

I can safely say that it wasnt about phony WMD stories..

[bush_cheney2004]

I can safely say that it wasnt about phony WMD stories..

The GBUs didn't know the difference.