Blair aren't you putting the egg before the chicken ?

Question

Your country in cohort with America are in Iraq without a UN mandate and yet you justify your troops presence. Isn't it your chance now to do what you had intented to do in the first place? The troops were there to check on smuggling while Iraq is in ruin because of your false propaganda about WMDs. There was no civil war then if there were people that died under Saddam, it cannot be comparable to the present where more than 650,000 have been killed by you and your boss gw bush the master terrorist.You have killed or allowed it to happen by invading a sovereign nation, breaking the rule of law that was in place and laying it to ruins. Did Saddam kill an average of 150,000 Iraqis a year? You are shameless and you know it you hypocrite? How did the Brits get him there in the first place? Should this be the year that we would see him out?

Bombasti,You could make it one if you are sincere and not bias.By the way, no one is putting a gun to your head to answer my questions, thank you.

I am refering to the present, the capture of the troops in Iranian water.

Making me to look like a friend of Saddam is not going to work for i am not. Jumping to conclusion is meant for uncultured beings. The Brits seem to the champions of human rights but they can't even follow the UN or world opinions regarding the war in Iraq and forget about the very existence of a Palestinian state for the brit government are slaves to the Israelis and the US. Ironic if you remember your days of slaving others like as if it is your god given right to lord over others while enriching your coffers through the blood sweat and lives of slaves, SHAME ON YOU ALL.

Answer 1

Your right, Saddam killed way more than that. Good observation.

Answer 2

I don't know about others jumping to conclusions but you seem to hold a monopoly on that.
You'll no doubt recall Saddam ignored a UN mandate which essentially then allowed the USA and its allies to deal with him.
Why were our troops there to check on smuggling? Smuggling what? Drugs? They come into the West via Iran.
If there is a civil war now and it's debatable, this was going to happen sooner or later once Saddam was out of the way. If two similar religions cannot live side by side what does that say about Islam?
I have no figures for the deaths Saddam caused and neither have you. Similarly, you don't have figures for the numbers killed in Iraq over the last 4 years, most of whom have not been killed by the Allies. You can make up figures to suit your point of view but, like the confessions spoken by our sailors who were captured in Iraqi waters, they are meaningless to intelligent people.
Frankly, if you were interested in the peace and security of Iraq you should spend more time berating Iran and Syria for supplying the insurgents with weapons than berating the Brits for trying to bring peace to your sorry country.
But then, of course, you wouldn't be allowed to do that, would you?

Answer 3

Yes, Blair puts eggs before the Chicken. The same is true of most people in the World.
Saddam, Bush and Tony Blair all put the eggs before the Chicken. They all suffered from insecurity. They had no other option to fight it out before the eggs hatched Chicken. Bush and Blair could destroy the egg before the Chicken of WMD could be hatched in Iraq. They succeeded at great cost.
Saddam thought that the egg of humiliation he received earlier by invading neighboring states can be hatched in to a Greatest Hero on Earth Chicken. He failed and will be stored in history as the Paper Hero.
Saddam is gone. Others will follow in due course. Bush is in his last term and will be replaced by a new hero. Blair will soon be replaced by another hero. Saddam will not be replaced soon. The regime has died its natural death by attracting enemy invasion too soon.
Killing is what feeds power to the people who wants to rule. Those with pre-fixed terms cannot kill as many. Those with unlimited term kills more till they get killed. That's the way human civilization proceeds. New Saddams will be in with new Bushes and Blairs. We will have widow's tears.

Answer 4

Why are you talking about issues 4 years old? What are we supposed to think when Saddam isn't letting the UN weapons inspectors look around certain areas? Don't forget that Saddam had plenty of time to move the weapons before we attacked, if he did indeed have them.

And saying we have killed 650,000 people is misleading. First, all "Iraqis" aren't innocent, some of them are insurgents or helping the insurgents. Second, I assume that number is total number of dead Iraqis, not necessarily killed by the US. Are you aware the insurgents are killing civilians too?

There might not have been "civil war" before we got there, but that was because there was just an entire group of people who were being oppressed and couldn't fight back, so of course there wasn't a civil war. There was just one group of people killing the other, now they are both killing each other.

PLEASE PLEASE explain to me why Saddam is such a good guy? And why you are on his side?

You are a sad sad man.

Answer 5

You appear to have forgotten that Blair was elected as Prime Minister democratically by the British people twice on the trot.
Secondly the decision to go to war against Iraq (which I personally was not in favour of) was supported by the overwhelming majority of elected MPs in the British Parliament as well as the majority of elected Labour MPs and the majority of elected Conservative MPs who the British people put in power democratically too.

You have also conveniently forgotten that Saddam had WOMDs repeat SADDAM HAD WOMDs and he had used his WOMDs on Iran and on his own people and there was clear evidence he would continue to use them, but for him being overthrown by military action. . It appears he moved them secretly into Syria so the UN Inspectors would not find them in Iraq and that was certainly a huge blunder by British and American intelligence, but then it was supposed to be a war against "the axis of evil" which included Iraq, Syria and Iran, not just against Saddam. The WOMDs are still in Syria who have a Ba'athist Party government just like was in Iraq and Syria supports international terrorism so could still let those WOMDs be used against "infidels"?

So if those WOMDs do end up being used on Britain and exterminate and all your family will you be jubilant and "hypocritical" about that?

Answer 6

Blair and Bush both invaded Iraq knowingly in spite of the UN ruling. The UN had investigators. in place and, though the going was somewhat they were making good headway and reported so.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/iraq/un_investigators.htm

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=72&num=11942&printer=1

http://www.omidyar.net/user/pierre/news/6/38/

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/what.html

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/inspectionsiraq20040202.html

The civil war in Iraq is like the one that lasted so long in Northern Ireland in which one group of Chritsians would not hire people from the other group of Chistians and not allow them a share in the economy. This the same in Iraq where one group of Islamics picks on another group of Islamics. This type of war can go on forever if there is a balanced population number and sorce of weapons. In the Iraq case it is more likely to become a genocide thanks to Bush and Blair.
The war in Afghanastan might well go on for many years.

CNN claims the death of 600,000 Iraqis because of the war.
This number included deaths of and by the insurgents, US civilian bombings, US insurgence killings, many, many fathers, mothers and childrens deaths because they have no livelihood and can't get food or water. Some of you seem quite enthralled with destructive bombings said to have destroyed a nation and killed many thousands of people in their homes. This attitude is deplorable.
However I think the estimate is somewhat high.

http://www.cnn.com/video/portable/promoplayer.html?mode=vod&video=/video/world/2006/10/11/starr.iraq.death.toll.report.ap&source=pop/

Nobody here is on Saddam's side. I really do not understand that people who search for the true and ask question, and see more humane ways of doing a job are always said to commies, liberals (in a bad way), liars, traitors and other crappy this by incenssed Republicans. I can only surmize they do not like the search for the truth.

Perhaps the Iranians are suppling arms they got from the US in the Iran/Contra affair under Reagan. It also was just a short time ago that Iraq backed by the US invaded Iran when Iraq used gas warfare.

Was the US culpable in the Iraqi actions?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s

I am glad to see Saddam gone. There is no doubt about it. He was a bad dictator. Nevertheless others helped Saddam. He certainly didn't get the methods to create various gases and biological weapons for war. Nor did he develope nuclear posibilities on his own. Nor weapons vehicles helicopters of US design on his own. I think that the countries that backed Iraq from Reagan to the Bushs' invations should not be trivealized.

Answer 7

In one of your follow up statements you mention that Brits are champions of human rights. Ask the Kurds inthe N.E. of Iraq
if they consented to be used as giunea pigs for gas and poison attacks. The record of Sadam Hussein on human rights was appalling and he should have been ousted in the 90's. The main reason he wsa'nt was that the rest of the Mid.East wanted a buffer state between them and Iran.

Answer 8

forgot your history eh? the arab league and the moderates in iraq wanted this operation to free their people. check with the saudis or any other arab state in the uae and maybe it will clear your head. the wmds are most likely in iran and syria though not as many as asserted. why do you think the iranians are all of a sudden so close to having nukes and that the syrians have some biologics. think about it!

Answer 9

The one thing that Saddam Hussain, Tony Blair and George Bush had in commen was that they are/were all Sociopaths.
It is just that they took divergent paths in their quest for self.
In the end product it is the ordinary people in all the countires involved who pay the price.

Answer 10

Aren't you asking this question in the wrong forum?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

For the record, I do have very strong opinions about Blair and Bush. I just don't know that they give a hoot about what's on Yahoo. So, while the question has some merits, and an open dialogue is important, I think this forum will not generate the response you seek.