Dubya welcome or not?

[fatbadger]

I wonder how many of the people dissing Blair now, voted for him in 1997 ?

Not me, that's for sure.

But even if so, so what? Are people not allowed to change their opinions? Are they not allowed to support what Blair stood for in 1997 but not what he stands for now? What's the point of what you are saying?

 

[Bare]

Fatbadger, you caught me on that one. Just the same you got my point.
Bush welcomes opposing opinions. I don't agree with everything he thinks/does. He's not afraid of disagreement. It opens our eyes.

 

[SM BHAFC]

Fatbadger it's a state visit as well so our Queen will be having Georgie boy to tea at our expense, is that not just great!

God save the Queen.

 

[alan partridge]

would it be childish to piss in the urn?


do you think they have urns at the palace?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Not me, that's for sure.

But even if so, so what? Are people not allowed to change their opinions? Are they not allowed to support what Blair stood for in 1997 but not what he stands for now? What's the point of what you are saying?

The world we live in today is much more dangerous than it was in 1997. Therefore any leader who is worthy of the name has to protect the interests of his nation, including the well-being of it's population. You cannot, as a leader of a Country, just wish that people like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden, or the PLO will disappear into thin air. They won't - they'll just look at you as a soft target for doing nothing to stop them. Then they'll come and find you.

If that means going to war then so be it. Prime Ministers don't go to war to curry public favour, they do it so that we, and our allies, don't face the risk of being attacked on our own soil. It isn't about being nice to others, it's about self preservation, and the potential to stave off a major problem in the future.

Now going to war is not an exact science, nor is it a guarentee that lives will be spared in the future. But if you disagree with invading Iraq, then you might as well enourage Saddam to re-invade Kuwait, re-declare war on Iran, re-gas the Kurds, and persit in acts of inhumanity.

There will always be a need for an Army,just as, throughout history, this country has fought other people who threaten it, be it Roman, Viking, William the Conqueror, Phillip I of Spain, Napolean, The Boers, The Kaiser, Hitler, General Gaultieri . It is human nature to fight, because man is a territorial animal, just like every other predator on this planet. Sorry if that isn't a liberal view, it's just a pragmatic one.

 

[alan partridge]

Now going to war is not an exact science, nor is it a guarentee that lives will be spared in the future. But if you disagree with invading Iraq, then you might as well enourage Saddam to re-invade Kuwait, re-declare war on Iran, re-gas the Kurds, and persit in acts of inhumanity.

how likely was it that saddam was going to start invading countries again? it seemed to anybody bothered to follow the job that the weapons inspectors were doing as highly unlikely. they could have been given more time to have been certain couldn't they? was invasion of another sovereign state necessary to protect ourselves? sorry, i don't quite see that this war has ensured, or will ensure our or other country's safety . and that after all is half the reason we were told it had to be done

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

how likely was it that saddam was going to start invading countries again? it seemed to anybody bothered to follow the job that the weapons inspectors were doing as highly unlikely. they could have been given more time to have been certain couldn't they? was invasion of another sovereign state necessary to protect ourselves? sorry, i don't quite see that this war has ensured, or will ensure our or other country's safety . and that after all is half the reason we were told it had to be done

Well if you went down to Will Hill eighteen months ago and asked them for odds on that happening then taking into account past form and statements from Baghdad i would have gone for it as a pretty sure fire bet.

How much time do you give someone that had been stringing along the internaitonal community for years. The old trick of making a small concession when the patience of the US/UK/UN ran out was clearly not going to wash with the more pragmatic Bush Administration. The one question that has not been answered was that if there are no WMD then why was Saddam so obstructive to the work of the inspectors when he must have realised that the US was serious this time.

The problem with trying to judge whether or not that the war improved the international situation is that no-one will ever know - in much the same way that if the international community had stood up to Hitler in '38 then no-one would have praised everyone for averting the Holocaust and WW2. it is a thankless job that can only engender criticism. There is a similar situation with the war on terrorism - the only way you know if it is working or not is when there is another terrorist attack - we never get told when attacks have been averted.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

In fact, come to think of it, just how many of this country's greatest leaders have been pacifists ?

That Neville Chamberlain did a great job appeasing Hitler after all ! Plenty of people supported him for his ' Peace in our Time ' pact with Hitler - did it stop Hitler, did it hell !

Given the events of 9/11, I think any leader of any political persuasion would re-examine his foreign policy and decide to become pro-active ( instigate change ) rather than re-active ( allow the status quo to persist and do nothing ).

Should the USA have done nothing about Saddam Hussein - no.

Why ?

Because no-one else ( certainly not the United Nations who would still be arguing amongst themselves to this day and well in to the future about it ) had the sense of just how Saddam could destabilise the region.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

Iraq had been under 12 years of UN sanctions, many years of UN inspections (which very effectively did the job). It was in no state to successfully invade or attack any country and get away with it. I thought it was the liberals who were meant to be naive head in the clouds people. I do not know how any rational person could think that the Saddam was anyhting but a threat to his own people. let alone the US and Uk.

 

[SM BHAFC]

Eastleigh and 34064 you have put exactly what i think much more eloquently than i ever could thanks.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

If Saddam had used conventional forces against his neighbours, then it would most certainly be US and UK ex-pats, servicemen on their bases, and Western Companies who would have been targets.

He could not of mounted a full on invasion, but he still had the means of waging war at his disposal.

If Saddam was so little of a threat, why are there still resistance fighters killing Allied troops right now. You can bet your life it willl be Saddam's Baath party leaders who are leading this resistance, In much the same way as the ' Real IRA ' has continued using the methods previously rennounced by the Provos in Northern Ireland.

I cannot see how leaving Saddam in power makes the Middle East a safer place. Leopards just don't change their Spots, even if you try to keep them teathered. Saddam would have eventually been suceeded by his Sons, the UN would have decided that there were no WMD's to be found, withdrawn, and left Iraq to become God knows what of a problem.

 

[alan partridge]

Iraq had been under 12 years of UN sanctions, many years of UN inspections (which very effectively did the job). It was in no state to successfully invade or attack any country and get away with it. I thought it was the liberals who were meant to be naive head in the clouds people. I do not know how any rational person could think that the Saddam was anyhting but a threat to his own people. let alone the US and Uk.

indeed. the pro war camp like to imagine they are being pragmatic and realistic when to a certain degree they are just ignoring facts. saddam wasn't a danger to anyone outside of iraq, but this was half of the reason we invaded it.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

he was a danger to neighbours for many reasons, most notably the fact that he had a fairly liberal view towards respecting the borders. He still maintained one of the largest armies in the world despite the country being in the gutter economically and he was also a huge danger to people in his own country to the Marsh Arabs in the South and the Kurds in the North. This also helped to destabilise the region by creating problems with refugees, arms smuggling neighborouing countries also liked to take advantage of the factions in Iraq to talk up their own agendas, notably Iran. the removal of Saddam, while people are quite justified in their objection to the way that it was done, can only in the long term help to bring some semblance of stability to the region.

 

[alan partridge]

He could not of mounted a full on invasion, but he still had the means of waging war at his disposal.

If Saddam was so little of a threat, why are there still resistance fighters killing Allied troops right now. You can bet your life it willl be Saddam's Baath party leaders who are leading this resistance, In much the same way as the ' Real IRA ' has continued using the methods previously rennounced by the Provos in Northern Ireland.

erm, surely those resistance fighters have been drawn into action by the invasion of iraq. they are, as you say, 'resistance' fighters. i don't remember many allied troops dying at the hands of these groups in the 12 years previous to this war

 

[chemical brother]

God save the Queen.

Piss off.

xx

 

[SM BHAFC]

God Save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen god save our Queen,

Send her victorious happy and glorious long to reign over us god save our Queen.

Not going anywhere you wanker

 

[Bigtomfu]

Has got to be the least well informed, most arrogant, stupid, ignorant, trip over your own shoe lace and land on your own knife- idiotic world Premier in history, therefore on the basis of my adroit historical synopsis i say PISS off!!!!!!!!!

 

[Simster]

God Save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen god save our Queen

How do you *know* that she is gracious and noble or are you just belting out those words like a crawly lick-spittle simply because they happen to be part of our national anthem?

 

[ChutneyStirrer]

I cannot see how leaving Saddam in power makes the Middle East a safer place. Leopards just don't change their Spots, even if you try to keep them teathered. Saddam would have eventually been suceeded by his Sons, the UN would have decided that there were no WMD's to be found, withdrawn, and left Iraq to become God knows what of a problem.

Who has ever argued that leaving Saddam in power would've made the ME a safer place?

The problem was the lack of UN authority to invade what was another Sovereign state; the dubious reasons given for the invasion; the indecent haste to invade and the lack of a proper post-war plan - or at least a plan that was more complete than selling out the Iraqi people into the clutches of US firms (Order 39).

Saddam was pretty well tethered with sanctions, weapons inspectors and no-fly zones. He would have fallen to a popular revolt sooner or later - see what happened in the ex-Soviet Bloc countries.

 

[Bare]

You guys make some fierce arguments.
Sadam was a threat to humanity. The only reason he wasn't more of a threat were the sanctions. To say he wouldn't eventually come out and do more harm to someone else is niave. People like that don't just walk away. But to eliminate the threat to his own country is surely a humanitarian reason enough.