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

[John]

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

** 30-Jan-10 News - Tony Blair faces questions about Iraq
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e100130#e100130

Contents:
"Tony Blair faces the Iraq War inquiry"
"China may sanction US companies after arms sales to Taiwan"
"Additional Links"

[ridgel]

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.

[John]

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.

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

John

[weak stream]

You can be for or against military action here but i think what Blair and Xenakis are getting to has to do with historical revisionism. The point that the status quo would not have held is a very important element to ponder. Inspectors as well as economic sanctions were breaking down at that point in 2002 2003. The other day on the history channel a program about presidents (carter through obama) indicated that the 03 Iraq invasion was "unilateral". According to Wikipedia 39 other nations contributed to the invasion. Revisionism and diversion are at this point are obscuring truth.

[gerald]

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.

[ridgel]

"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.

[John]

"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

[The Grey Badger]

"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?

[weak stream]

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....

[ridgel]

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.