tony blair and george bush have yet more blood on their hands.

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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.....

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?

I said that they have blood on their hands. They do. I said that the success of the uprising today is a direct consequence of the invasion and the toppling of Hussain. It is. The uprising (western funding, training and weapons or not) would not enjoy the success it has had if he was still in power. Evil he was. But the country had some kind of order under him.

The two of them may be a small part of a larger group of men who have caused unjust conflict in the world, but that doesn't make them angels. The British Empire brought both progress and pain to many far off lands. All for it's own benefit. Sound familiar? The USA is playing the same great game that Britain played in the past. If that isn't an opinion you share? Well that's up to you. But don't call me a liar.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

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.

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.

One thing I would disagree with though. I don't believe the invasion was about bringing democracy to Iraq.
edit on 2781642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
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.

edit on 21-8-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

I only part ways on two points you've made in your post.

The first, is the 2000 years of almost non-stop wars in the region.

I rebut: Cannot the same be said for Europe? At the least, 2000 years, and more, of similar behavior by the 'natives'?

Second, as with Yalta, the splitting of both Vietnam and Korea, and the example I pointed out of the Ottoman empire, post-war expediency has resulted in the same results in Iraq, IE. setting the stage for the next fight.

A proposed solution was the splitting of Iraq into three regions/nations based on their ethnicity. Kurd, Sunni and Shia.

A long term dominant military presence by the U.S./NATO would ensure the peace with proportional distribution of oil monies to each.( Much like what occurred in Europe in a post WWII environment.)

This was nixed, apparently, due to Turkish concerns. They were afraid the newly formed Kurdish region would then set their sights on regaining Kurdish territory that was now part of Turkey. As a major and strategic partner of the U.S./NATO with a large military presence in Turkey, the plan was rejected.

IMO, that option is still on the table as a solution if we can get through this latest mess.

Just my opinion though...


edit on 21-8-2014 by nwtrucker because: clarification
edit on 21-8-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I hope they are strong of mind because I know if I had that on my conscience I wouldn't be able to live with myself. If it was for the greater good it would be understandable. But it wasn't it was money orientated and soldiers and innocent civilians have paid for it in their hundreds of thousands.

I think the same as you,only i think of what will happen in the hereafter that's some heavy heavy baggage to carry.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   

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.

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.
You are talking about Granby in 90/91 and previous US/Iraq weapons deals. Those same WMD's that were then lied about. You are talking about things that have absolutely no relevance to what I said in an attempt to make yourself look intelligent.

I Omitted Hussain? Well he was an evil dictator and also a war criminal. But I'm glad you mention him in the same sentence as Bush and Blair as they too are war criminals.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: sg1642

Thank you for proving my point.


I don't think that you even know what your point is but you're very welcome.





top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join