30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by shoshin » Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:18 pm

John (and others), respectfully, I don't believe we did win. If the idea was to "change the political landscape in the Middle East," we didn't. If the idea was to get the Iraqis to work together in a single, united state, I don't think so. But most importantly, we should ask the families of those killed or grievously maimed if they think it was worth it. The cost of this debacle goes well beyond the billions spent on materiel and salaries and logistics. Our veterans from this war will have to be supported (as well they deserve) for decades, and no one seems to have figured that into the equation. In the debate over "surging" in Afghanistan, the figure quoted was $1,000,000/year/soldier. Yet, the long-term support of those soldiers (as veterans, as injured rehabs, as the dead) was not part of that calculation.

see Ricks's latest book...

http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Petraeus-A ... 900&sr=8-2

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by Guest » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:02 pm

Again - Fred tells me to calm down, attacking the speaker instead of the argument. Fred, Colin Powell got in front of the U.N. as a representative of the United States and told the world that we knew where the WMDs were and had conclusive evidence of them. That was clearly a lie - or a stretch of the truth or a misunderstanding if you want to refer to a lie with the political euphemisms.

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by freddyv » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:25 pm

ridgel wrote:Jeez, now John's calling me a loon because I don't like to get lied to by the government and the media. Where's the WMDs John? Does it hurt too much to admit they were never found and you were lied to by everyone from Colin Powell to the NY Times to NPR to the WSJ to the Economist? If Saddam was still in Iraq - then Saddam would still be Iraq and it wouldn't have cost 2 trillion dollars for the U.S. military to babysit a bunch of Arabs.

Ridgel,

I suggest you calm down and look at the facts. The FACT is that we KNOW Saddam had WMD because he used them. Also, it has been shown that Saddam was trying to convince everyone he still had them even after he had (apparently) gotten rid of them so his neighbors would respect (fear) him. Just a tad bit of research on this subject would show you both of these things are true.

Therefore these people and the press certainly did not lie. If you know the facts and still insist they lied then YOU are denying the truth.

Now I am no fool, I knew at the time that they were making a case (for war) and I wasn't buying it. I did not think we had reason to go to war when it was obvious we had Saddam on the run. But once we went to war I believed that the only thing to do was to win the war ASAP, unfortunately it took a very long time. BTW, I think we may be worse off because we ruined a balance of power that kept both Iran and Iraq at each other's throats but I also think that Iraq is better off in the long run. We did what they should have but perhaps couldn't: killed Saddam and gave the people a chance at power.

Fred
http://www.acclaiminvesting.com/

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by weak stream » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:58 pm

Again, one can think one way or another about the war. Many valid points on both sides. No insults however I spent more than enough years on campus to propose that college profs are as prone to opinion clustering as others. The reason for this I think has to do with maintaining friendly relationships with other faculty. I think any academic who omits/distorts facts is a nit wit. Anyone who follows this blog does so because they seek more than the msm feeds us. Honest debate, no foul.

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by ridgel » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:32 pm

High School debate class taught me that you don't win an argument by insulting your opponent. That's served me well through the years, and it's a good sign that someone doesn't have much of an argument when they start calling people who disagree with them "loons" and "half witted academics". If it gives you warm-fuzzy feelings to think that Saddam was about to kick the inspectors out, then enjoy yourself. The fact is, if Saddam *had* kicked the inspectors out, it would have been a reasonable cause for war. At that point the country might have been behind the war and stayed behind the war. But he didn't. So who's playing revisionist here?

As far as us winning that war, you must have pretty low standards, John. Did the U.S. administration try to cheap-out with the numbers of troops to win the war? Absolutely - that's a proven fact with testimony on both sides. Did it matter - well, 7 years later and it's not safe for an American to drive the streets in daylight. Was it like that in Europe in the years after WWII was won? I doubt it.

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by weak stream » Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:27 pm

The historical revisionism will be coming from the political enemies of Mr Blair as well as from half witted academia. The reason? Just axes to grind....

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by The Grey Badger » Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:48 pm

John wrote:
ridgel wrote:"So, are you saying that Tony Blair is a war criminal? Is he the same as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot?"

He certainly shouldn't be above the law. The Iraq war is a disaster. As an American I believe two things about war. One, they should be avoided and two if you are in one you should win it. Iraq fails on both counts. It was easily avoidable, and Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. If it threatened anyone it's Israel or Europe - and they have planes and bombs so they should have taken care of the problem. Second, once we entered the war (without a declaration of war from congress) we were so worried about casualties and loss of civilians that we didn't even bother to win it. It's seven years after that war started. Why can't I get a commercial flight to Baghdad? Because we didn't win the war. That's what happens when wars are started for trumped up causes that don't make sense. They don't have any popularity and so they are fought with gloves on without the required resources and they turn into disasters. Worst part is that anyone who has read a thing about Vietnam knew that this would be an unpopular war and a disaster - but that hard-won experience was ignored by a bunch of blustering idiots who figured that since they could win elections they could defy reality. So that's why Tony Blair's idiotic lies shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten.
Ummmmmm ... we DID win it.

John
Quoth General Phyrrus?

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by John » Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:38 pm

ridgel wrote:"So, are you saying that Tony Blair is a war criminal? Is he the same as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot?"

He certainly shouldn't be above the law. The Iraq war is a disaster. As an American I believe two things about war. One, they should be avoided and two if you are in one you should win it. Iraq fails on both counts. It was easily avoidable, and Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. If it threatened anyone it's Israel or Europe - and they have planes and bombs so they should have taken care of the problem. Second, once we entered the war (without a declaration of war from congress) we were so worried about casualties and loss of civilians that we didn't even bother to win it. It's seven years after that war started. Why can't I get a commercial flight to Baghdad? Because we didn't win the war. That's what happens when wars are started for trumped up causes that don't make sense. They don't have any popularity and so they are fought with gloves on without the required resources and they turn into disasters. Worst part is that anyone who has read a thing about Vietnam knew that this would be an unpopular war and a disaster - but that hard-won experience was ignored by a bunch of blustering idiots who figured that since they could win elections they could defy reality. So that's why Tony Blair's idiotic lies shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten.
Ummmmmm ... we DID win it.

John

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by ridgel » Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:01 pm

"So, are you saying that Tony Blair is a war criminal? Is he the same as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot?"

He certainly shouldn't be above the law. The Iraq war is a disaster. As an American I believe two things about war. One, they should be avoided and two if you are in one you should win it. Iraq fails on both counts. It was easily avoidable, and Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. If it threatened anyone it's Israel or Europe - and they have planes and bombs so they should have taken care of the problem. Second, once we entered the war (without a declaration of war from congress) we were so worried about casualties and loss of civilians that we didn't even bother to win it. It's seven years after that war started. Why can't I get a commercial flight to Baghdad? Because we didn't win the war. That's what happens when wars are started for trumped up causes that don't make sense. They don't have any popularity and so they are fought with gloves on without the required resources and they turn into disasters. Worst part is that anyone who has read a thing about Vietnam knew that this would be an unpopular war and a disaster - but that hard-won experience was ignored by a bunch of blustering idiots who figured that since they could win elections they could defy reality. So that's why Tony Blair's idiotic lies shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten.

Re: 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq

by gerald » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:41 am

regarding "ridgel" and "weak stream's" comments --

Historical revisionism has been going on since before recorded history. It has been said "history is a Mississippi of lies" an example is the history channels "US unilateral invasion" as previously mentioned.

Regarding Iraq, I spent some time watching the "invasion" on TV, there was a brief live aerial shot of a commercial airliner, less part of its wings, surrounded by homes in a residential Baghdad neighborhood, at the time an observer said " this could be the training plane used for the 9/11 attacks. I don't think we had any choice, we had to attack or do another Chamberlain " peace in our time". Also what I found disgusting was some of the US TV commentators seem disappointed that more US personal were not getting killed and that the military action went as well as it did. Another thing, what ever happened to all of those semi trucks moving things out of Iraq into Syria weeks before the military action? what were they carrying? -- Revisionism? by who, and for what reason? there is always a reason.

Top