It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

Does Cameron or Obama have any responsibility towards what is happening now?

Seeing how Iraq's military was trained and given weapons to protect themselves then no it doesn't fall on Obama and Cameron. Iraq wanted the allied forces out of Iraq was we just supposed to say the hell with what you want we are staying here anyway? All the people crying that Obama pulled America out should actually read it because Bush was the one that agreed to pull our people out of there Obama had nothing to do with it.
U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement


The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

edit on 15-6-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

Does Cameron or Obama have any responsibility towards what is happening now?


some. But Bush and Blair caused the mess in the first place.

It like me committing a murder and then running off and leaving my friends to bury the body. sure my friends hold some responsibility for that murder but I still caused and should still face the music for it.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
At the risk of making an unpopular point, or two.

The removal of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein a decade ago merely took the lid off the age-old conflict between the Sunni and Shia. Hussein had kept both sides controlled in his reign using repression, fear and all the usual tricks dictators use to keep in power.

The coalition forces (mainly US and UK) just found themselves standing between two sides of a shooting match, which is why so many people died e.g. (hint) the suicide bomber hitting a market was not after the US soldiers. See en.wikipedia.org...

ISIS is just another group of Islamic psychos wanting to kill and repress others Muslims. This lot is well funded, particularly nasty and bolstered by fighters from Syria.

You can blame Bush and Blair if you want, but you will be blaming the wrong people.

Regards


This is the point.

Saddam may have been a Brutal and evil douche. But that may be whats needed in Iraq. Democracy may just not be the right fit for parts of the ME and need a strong iron hand to keep the barbarians in check.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
However, if Saddam was not removed it is likely Iraq would be in the same state as Syria - totally dysfunctional and a breeding ground for wannabe psychopaths in the throws of a very brutal civil war. This is Blair's point.

Arguably, Iraq is in a better position to deal with these extremists than under Saddam, mainly because the blood-letting following his removal has already happened. The coiled spring has sprung, so to speak.

Democracy is fit for all societies. It is just a matter of time. What is needed in Iraq is the removal of Islamic extremists who cause mayhem wherever they go.
To note. I doubt NATO or the US will become overtly involved. I expect ISIS to be defeated by the Iraqi forces, who will do it in a way that does not ape Saddam's "kill everyone" policy. Thankfully.

Regards



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

It like me committing a murder and then running off and leaving my friends to bury the body. sure my friends hold some responsibility for that murder but I still caused and should still face the music for it.


The first city was taken by a few 100 as 20,000 trained troops decided to abandon their post. Kind of hard to say we didn't train or help before we left. Something else is going on there....

To say that the removal of a brutal dictator that ran a brutal system, basically enslaving the people at his whim, and the whims of the Ba'ath party, has caused all this is really a very narrow minded view that is purely driven by one's political agenda.

You must also then agree that it would have been better if Russia remained as a communist power as it once was controlling many counties, preventing events like the wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Saddam may have been a Brutal and evil douche. But that may be whats needed in Iraq. Democracy may just not be the right fit for parts of the ME and need a strong iron hand to keep the barbarians in check.


Well then one day all I can hope for is that you also get a chance to live under an evil douche, it might be what is needed to understand....




edit on 15-6-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
They didn't start the fire. Its been always burning since the worlds been turning.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: crazyewok
Saddam may have been a Brutal and evil douche. But that may be whats needed in Iraq. Democracy may just not be the right fit for parts of the ME and need a strong iron hand to keep the barbarians in check.


Well then one day all I can hope for is that you also get a chance to live under an evil douche, it might be what is needed....





I don't know why it hard to accept, NOT every country wants or is suited to our western ideals or values.
edit on 15-6-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


However, if Saddam was not removed it is likely Iraq would be in the same state as Syria - totally dysfunctional and a breeding ground for wannabe psychopaths in the throws of a very brutal civil war. This is Blair's point.


You seem to be helping to move the goalpost.

The only reason anyone was behind bushblair going into Iraq was the huge WMD propaganda both of them pushed. But it's ok, saddam needed to be removed from power anyway. Without WMDs there was no need to go into Iraq. Gotta rally some support?

but to go in and murder the very people you are claiming to save? That's democracey at its finest. Two faced.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I don't think anyone who supported the war against Iraq or Afghanistan in politics have any thoughts (at least in the media) that they are to blaim for the current chaos/bloody mess.

Here another example:




edit on 15-6-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Plugin

Yes, Senator McCrankypants has been getting into a right old lather about this. He needs to retire back to Arizona. Has anyone got that Simpsons image of Granpa yelling at a cloud?



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I read Blair's article this morning and felt my blood pressure spike. He claims that the chaos in Iraq would have happened anyway as a result of the war in Syria. Which is to put things backwards. It can be argued that the war in Syria started as a consequence of the 2003 Iraq War.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I don't know why it hard to accept, NOT every country wants or is suited to our western ideals or values.


Well then we removed an evil douche, gave them a system, so let the chips fall where they may....



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: crazyewok
I don't know why it hard to accept, NOT every country wants or is suited to our western ideals or values.


Well then we removed an evil douche, gave them a system, so let the chips fall where they may....


The fact is you shouldn't have stepped foot in Iraq in the first place and let the chips fall then without ANY outside interference.

Iraq did not want or need USA and UK values shoved down there throat. They needed to find there own way from the beginning.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: crazyewok
I don't know why it hard to accept, NOT every country wants or is suited to our western ideals or values.


Well then we removed an evil douche, gave them a system, so let the chips fall where they may....



No the US first helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons (Iran got lots of US war gear as well) < good business, even more so when they where fighting against eachothers...

Then sanctioned Iraq (where half million kids died (no medicine and such), after the first Iraq war from the US.

With the second war bombed the country flat (for a big part) & anyone who dies as a result, loosing a brother/family;.. they are easy new recruits for any terrorist organisation.
All the time (don't forget) bombs where going off everywhere in Iraqi city's. Nobody really knows how many died since the Iraq war.. could be millions..

Then we (NATO) helped terrorists organisations fighting against Assad & Qadhafi.. giving them all the money they need to fight them.



And now they are crying about terrorist organisations taking Iraqi city's.. why?
edit on 15-6-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
he's full of it. blair is a repulsive lying coward. he's insane.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
The fact is you shouldn't have stepped foot in Iraq in the first place and let the chips fall then without ANY outside interference.


That is not a fact, that is an opinion, your opinion...

There was this thing called a coalition of 40 countries...



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Blair must be lonely up there on his pedestal.

But yet he's not alone, George W and John Howard are in the same boat-they are also enjoying a tax payer funded 'retirement' while their replacements are left to clean up the mess they created, and let's not forget the thousands of servicemen and women who lost their lives in the conflict, only for it to rear it's ugly head again.

Mission Accomplished? my hairy arse. Blair and co. should be held responsible, but sadly that will never happen.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plugin
No the US first helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons (Iran got lots of US war gear as well) < good business, even more so when they where fighting against eachothers...


How can you use the word "no" to refute some statement in my post that isn't even there? We supported him at first against Iran, but once again you mix conspiracy with facts on Bio/chemical weapons.


Then sanctioned Iraq (where half million kids died (no medicine and such), after the first Iraq war from the US.


That was world sanctions, from the Kuwait's rape pillaged and plunder. Saddam's choice to cause the sanctions in the first place, and to where needed to put his limited resources. The guy was so wicked I would not hold it pass himself to help facilitate suffering of his people for a political response to the sanctions.



All the time (don't forget) bombs where going off everywhere in Iraqi city's. Nobody really knows how many died since the Iraq war.. could be millions..


Maybe, but by their own hands of killing each other.... The war was over very quick, but the long term, and still fighting by the Sunni's and Shia was/is a bloody event.




edit on 15-6-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero


That is not a fact, that is an opinion, your opinion...

A opinion shared by the majority I might add.



originally posted by: Xtrozero

There was this thing called a coalition of 40 countries...

Does not make it right.

But hey MURIKA MUKIA BOMB BOMB BOMB ALL DUUUUUUUUUUUH!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join