2006-11-28 07:34:43 · 14 answers · asked by steven e 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
No. The original reason may have been a lie but there were sound facts indicating Sadam was a dangerous man i.e. the Iran -v- Iraq war, genocide of Kurds etc. Okay so the 'peace' was poorly planned but that was the Digital Divison attack. Fast and Furious was how the neo-cons wanted it. If the peace had been better planned there would have been less insurgency. The Iraqis are victims of their own creation. The Kurds, Suni's and Shi-ites are never going to work together as long as Iran and Syria stir the mix.
2006-11-28 07:48:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Prime Minister took our country into a war which it did not need to wage and the reasons given for taking us into it have been exposed as 'spurious' to put it politely.
We are now in a situation whereby involvement in Iraq could well turn into Britain's Vietnam.
Tony Blair should firstly apologise to the widows and orphans his actions and decisions have created, secondly apologise to the entire nation and then resign.
2006-11-28 21:53:04 · answer #2 · answered by cllr_tomhamilton@btopenworld.com 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This judging the previous through the prevailing is ridiculous. The slave commerce change into centuries in the past and practiced through just about each and every way of existence. i do not realize why white human beings were brainwashed into believing the favor to assert sorry for the friggin' SLAVE commerce at the same time as it change into thousands of years earlier they were born and they'd no longer something to do with it. that is stupid to assert sorry at the same time as there's no favor to assert sorry.
2016-10-07 22:20:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing PM Blair has to be sorry for is the fact that he's allowed himself to be led around by the nose by that corrupt megalomaniac wannabe King Georgie Bush
2006-11-28 11:45:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Slave trade had nothing to do with Blair,he Lied about Iraq so
yes he should say sorry(even though it wont bring all the dead
back)and I don't believe a word he says any more.
2006-11-28 10:02:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He only tendered an apology of sorts. He has not got the bottle to apologise for the war in Iraq. He (as Bush's poodle--lick lick-yap yap) went in for the oil. Now there is a civil war imminent, and a loss of life which has shocked the world. All because of VANITY.
2006-11-28 08:37:58 · answer #6 · answered by breedgemh_101 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In reality it is just another dose of "Blairs B U L L S H I T" he,s not sorry about anything , just another little "Look at Me - I,m the Greatest" stunt -- if he was "Sorry" about anything he should "Apologise" to the British people for the way he and his "New Labour" Low Life Rabble have wrecked Great Britain .
2006-11-28 20:12:37 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He should not apologise for the slave trade it was nothing to do with him. Im British but how can I say sorry all I can say is that I am upset by my nations history regarding that aspect bt it was nothing to do with me
2006-11-30 06:56:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did he apologise about the slave trade - he did not cause it, he did not even live in the era of legal slavery, nor did his parents. It is silly to apologise for something you did not do.
If I was to apologise for the 14-18 war then it would be equally as stupid. If people's descendants have to apologise for things their ancestors did I would like the Italians to apologise to Britain for the Roman conquest in 43AD.
He should say sorry for the war, that was partly his fault.
2006-11-28 08:02:34 · answer #9 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We should be sorry this lying piece of filth is still in power, Guy Fawkes should be resurrected to plant a bomb under all these silver spoon boys.
2006-11-29 07:59:14 · answer #10 · answered by HellBound 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋