The news just came on on channel 5: Headline: Tony Blair refuses to appologise for Iraq. Tony Blair: "I will not appologise for removing Saddam Hussein." Okay Tony, err...how about appologising for the obscene murder of thousands then, you pretentious git? He irritates me slightly, can you tell?
Tony Blair: "I will not appologise for removing Saddam Hussein." He does not have to appologies for removing saddam . An apology for removing saddam would be a stupid thing to say , because that would be leapt upon by certain groups as a admition of iligality for the whole war . Something people are gagging to have . Saying he got it wrong on inteligence is good , but then again it was a matter of opinion . And a fundementaly awesome responsibility.. It was more the countless resolutions (1441) he broke that drove us to this war anyway.. Do people think Mr Blair should be saying sorry for that as well. ?? Flaws in both sides of thinking are going to happen ... do you think the anti war position has anything to say sorry for for their mistakes in thinking and errors in their inteligence ...well i do . But not being intrested in scoring points i won't be asking for any . Being at the top of the morale supperiority tree must be bloody lovely.
He has done a few good things; minimum wage, abolition of fox hunting etc. Good stuff but they all seem like token gestures to me.
Oh fuck off matthew. If you want to be pro-war, get your facts straight. Breaking a security council resolution has nothing to do with it. Do you have any idea how many UN resolutions there are condemning Israel, and how many they're in violation of? Do you see us rushing to war with Israel? And you think one fucking resolution is justification for a war with Iraq???? * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors". * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw". * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops". * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians. * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention. * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians". * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians. * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations. * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return. * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians. * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
. I realise that... saying sorry is ridiculous . for actions taken . I was not saying he should say sorry for anything. Maybe not you but others would take your place on condemming a attack on Israel. you would then maybe not be anti war but pro war.. just a dicision of yours based on your opinions. Are they right or wrong . You may say they are right .. swings and roundabouts.
You're missing the point entirely. The war was based on a series of false premises. That's why people expect an apology - because they feel they were misled.
I'd prefer a resignation. Failing that, an apology would be better than nothing. Or I'd even settle for honesty - an admission that it was a strategic war over oil.
an admission that it was a strategic war over oil .. the holy grail of the whole debate i guess...i was going to say that old chestnut but thats not fair.well the removal of saddam milions upon millions of people living in a democratic society and hopefuly no more religous inspired madness well .. Do you think we should put the good and the bad of this war on the scales and see wich one wins ?
I do think the anti war movement can claim moral superiority. It's quite simple really. Both sides claim the moral high ground, the peace camp for avoiding conflict and saving civillian lives (over ten thousand now even by conservative estimates) and the war camp for removing an obviously corrupt and cruel dictator. However whereas the peace movements moral motives are clearly stated and obvious for all to see, the war camp's arguments are not only based on faulty intelligence, but shrouded in lies and deception. Who now can possibly claim that the central motive for war was not oil and American hegemony, even if it can be justified in other ways? Even if a war to remove a tyrant was right, I couldn't support it for those reasons simply to be usurped by corrupt politicians with their own agenda which is far from altruistic. Dok is right about the security council resolutions and Israel too. This is not to advocate war against Israel, but it is to say, why Saddam, why now? Why not any other equally corrupt dictator if not completely economically, religiously and politically motivated?
Now do we have the situation that you described? No, we have chaos, a blood bath and plenty of religious inspired madness (a crime Saddam himself was never actually guilty of - hence our support for him against Iran) Also, even if a moral justification of the war would be to create a better democratic society in Iraq, if the politicians conducting the war were not doing it for these reasons, but for their own ends, there is plenty of room for scepticism as to whether this can actually be achieved.
Firstly, whether the outcome of the war is good or bad is not the issue. The issue is whether our politicians were honest with us about the reasons for going to war. A good outcome to a war shouldn't just be a lucky coincidence - it should be its strategic goal. But yes, I do think we should weigh the good and the bad. A destabilised middle east, increased anti-Western feeling, thousands of people without the basic essentials etc etc etc. I've yet to be convinced that Iraq is currently any better off.
well neither one of us are their ..so the current progress can not be fully given by either of us. You i feel are ebbing on the side of negativity because you don't think this war should have happened ever . so anything positive would undermine your way of thinking . You have with out saying feel you are correct and most of the time beat your oppsition down till their point of view is watered down to something that is heavily the way you think so more correct..well i am not going to play that game today sorry ... I am probably am wrong hahah ? but everytime you converse with me you do it eventualy.or endlessly move away from what was said in the first place simply because you don't agree with it , and think it is wrong. I await the 'arrogant speach'
Are yuo on fucking crack? You think I'm negative because I don't believe war is a good thing?!? Yeah, pass the pipe..... Sorry if you don't like facts. Debates kinda work that way. One person makes a more convincing case. What's the alternative? Accept you're right and shut up? Yeah, the person with no factual basis for their argument usually ends up whining about the other person. We were told we were going to war to remove WMD. This claim has proved to be ill-founded. Therefore I believe we were taken to war on a false premise. What's so watered down about that? You specifically mention a security council resolution as a reason for going to war. I provide you with a comprehensive list of security council resolutions that Israel has violated, thereby undermining your case conclusively. And you start whinging that I'm "moving away from what was said in the first place"?!? It's not fair! Mwhhhaaaaaaa!!!!! I don't think you're arrogant. I think you're fucking stupid. If you're intellectually ill-equipped to defend your opinion, then stop whining when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Do you wish for us to start a war with israel ? If so why ? What would be the motives for waging war ? What inteligence would convince the general public that taking action is a good idea ? What would your position be if what you thought was not 100% correct ? If you don't want a war with israel , why do you bring it up. What is your actual position ? No i don't think your negative because you think war is a bad thing ..you said you were not a pascifist the other day , so this is the first time i have read that you think war is a bad thing . I think your looking negatively at the situation because a positive look at the situation would undermine what you think > and those scales i was talking about may just edge over to the good..and that would sorta make any talk about the iligality a bit of a intelectual debate if nothing else , to be had in smokey rooms over port. But you still have that oil thing so all is not lost just yet. Prove this oil thing you speak of is fact , i will be glad to say sorry . oh i am not on crack..
Because you suggest that a breached security council resolution is a reason for war. Clearly it isn't, or we'd be at war with Israel. Fucking hell. You don't have to be a pacifist to think war is a bad thing! That's like saying you have to be a satanist to think christianity's a bad thing! That's a meaningless statement. I could say I think you're negative for not believing peace is a good thing. Negativity/positivity in that context is based entirely upon the position of the observer. Bullshit. I'm weighing up what I believe to be the pros and cons of the war, and deciding that on balance I believe it to be a bad thing. If I was to follow your logic, it would be impossible to oppose the war without being branded negative. Unless you're suggesting that I'm taking an intentionally biased view to suit my negative perspective. I hope you're not, because that would make you an offensive little snot who jumps to conclusions about the opinions of people who're infinitely better informed than himself. What a load of idiotic bullshit. Laws don't exist to be broken when it suits us. Breaking laws isn't ok just because we happen to get lucky and a good result comes of it. So if I kill someone, and it turns out they're a paedophile, you think the police would say "oh well, no harm done, he was a bit of a perv anyway"? I'll look forward to it.
