It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I would like you to point out where I lied. Regardless of British actions half a century ago, George Bush and Tony Blair blatantly lied to and misled their respective nations and instigated a pointless war. Are you trying to imply that British meddling in the Middle East during the times of empire was a direct cause of the 2003 invasion? Do you see the 2003 invasion as a legal war?
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: hounddoghowlie
Under Saddam there were no terrorists?
Except him, you omit.
He'd still be alive and in power if he had stayed in his own turf and left Kuwait alone.
The blood is on British hands- amazing irony that most of the anti-Bush/Blaire rhetoric comes from the very biggest source of middle east ills, Britain- with the split up of the Ottoman empire after WWI, the subsequent Suez Canal fiasco in the creation of Israel and, most recently, the British led incursions into Egypt and Libya.
Yes, lies abound. Including this thread.....
agree with your post. I'm not trying to say they are responsible for all the middle east's problems. The people of the region are clearly more than capable of making their own problems. But they have played a huge part in recent events and are guilty of instigating a wasteful, pointless and (some would argue) illegal war. Not the first and not the last to do so but guilty all the same.
originally posted by: itguysrule
It's way too simplistic to blame Bush and Blair for the trouble in the Middle East. That place has been a continual war zone for most of the last 2000 years. Bush and Blair believed that if we helped the Iraqis and others in the area throw out their dictators like Saddam they would embrace democracy and become a more prosperous people. I thought the same thing at the time.
It turns out we were very wrong about the people in the Middle East. We gave the Iraqis and others way more credit than they deserve. These people are not the least bit interested in adopting democracy or moving past old grievances. They are still fighting over things that happened 500 or 1000 years ago. They are happy to have an election that puts their group in power so they can control or punish their historical enemies. I have since decided that there is literally nothing we can do to help them.
So was invading Iraq and Afghanistan a screw up of epic proportions? In retrospect - Yes. Was it the root cause of all of the troubles? - No. Is the current US Administration just as bone-headed and making matters even worse? - Sadly, that would be a Yes as well.
I have no need to expand my knowledge just as you have no need to expand on the subject. I stated that the 2003 war was a lie and the responsibilities for it and it's knock on effects lay firmly at their feet.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: sg1642
Where you lied? It's right in the title. Blood on Blair and Bush's hands.
You omit Saddam, yourselves and the twits in the region.
There were no 'lies'.
The U.S. gave Saddam the Anthrax seeds and the chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. He both had the WMDs and used them on the Kurds.
I can't speak of the other British politicians, but in the U.S. virtually all the top politicians stated the data line regarding Saddam and WMD. The others flipped when expedient to do so.
Your lie is in twisting the facts, omitting the real reason for Saddam invaded Kuwait-already posted for others edification-and over exaggerating the role of both Blair and Bush as they inherited the mess in the middle east- which you also ignore.
It is obvious to me, you have no desire for expanding your knowledge and placing blame more responsibly.
I am left with the conclusion you have no other motive than hate mongering and finger pointing.
Whatever happened to British objectivity? Gone with it's empire, I suppose.
Have a nice life.