A prime minister to answer what?

[Tarot]

This month Tony Blair is to face another inquiry about the Iraq war, Why?

Have people forgot what started it,Saddamn Hussain.

Everyone was pretty angry when he took passengers hostage,used them as human shields,beat our pilots up

The posioning of the Kurds with gas,the atrosities on his own countrymen.

The scud missiles on Arabia,and Israel,

The threats of germ warfare on the west. The regime was run by maniacs.

The news was full of it,people were worried.

There was a great sense of relief when that threat was removed.

The men in power at the time,done what they thought was best to protect their countries, so what is there to answer to.

[Keef]

Good bit of trolling Tarot. Apparently it was terror they were going to war with though, not Saddamn.

[SimonM]

2/10

[Tarot]

Saddamn put himself forward as a terroist.so it was a war on terroism.

Its not trolling Keef,

I dont see why a primeminister protecting his country against a evil dictator should have to defend himself.

Its years later now and its still going on.

Margeret Thatcher didnt undergo this persistant questioning.

I would have wanted her to answer,to why she (in her cost cutting) took away the nuclesr submarine that was protecting

the Falklands at the time,

Shortly after the Argentinians invaded,

The trouble with most people in this country is they want to run with the fox,then hunt with the hounds.

They were with him at the time, now they want to slate him.

[ratty]

How was TB protecting this country?

[DJKillaQueen]

So at just what point has Iraq ever been a threat to the UK?

And given the equal mess the country is now in just what has been achieved?

The shi-ites/ sunnis/ kurds and assyrians still hate each other with a vengence. For all the Hussein family's ills the problem remains that who ever governs needs to do so with an iron rod. Anything less won't be able to keep a lid on the waring factions.

As for the Falklands...entirely different issue altogether. We were taking back sovereign land after invasion (a direct attack on Britain). Iraq has never attacked us or the USA either.

[Huguenot]

I think identifying threats to the UK is more complex than asking if they knocked at the door with a gun in their hand.

Around 15% of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be in Iraq, and 40% more in the countires it borders.

If Iraq was considered to be planning activity that would seriously threaten access to those resources, then our absolute dependence upon oil means that it must be considered a threat to the existence of the UK, and hence a primary national security issue.

Genocide or mass murder aren't generally considered to be national security issues, and wouldn't attract military involvement.

Unfortunately despite the huge primacy of the oil supply concern, the British public is far more likely to buy in to the latter than the former as a reason for war. That's why governments don't tell the truth ;-)

[Tarot]

The threat of germ warfare,was enough to take preventative measures. You cannot blast germs or gas out of the air.

saddamn was threatening"The mother of all wars",

It had to be dealt with,the people were asking why dont they nuke him.

But as Hugeonot said, they had to consider the oil,the other factor was they didnt know if there was a germ warfare bombs they might set off. The achievement was to take the threat away.

The mess of this country has nothing to do with it.We still havent got oil,as we are aware now.

As for The Falklands war,Margeret Thatcher, removed the defensive submarine,THEN, the argentinians invaded.

If she had not made defense cuts at the time, would they have invaded No I dont think so,

I cannot remember her being grilled all the time.

Maybe you were too young to remember at the time D.J.K.Q.

[Marmora Man]

Tarot,

As a matter of fact:

1. The Conservative defence cuts hadn't been made, merely announced, priot to the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Isles.

2. Had the cuts been implemented it would have been impossible to create and defend the Task Force

3. There was never a permanent nuclear submarine defending the Falkland Isles - tho' post the invasion several took part in the subsequent conflict and, occassionally, nuclear submarines may carry out a covert patrol of the area (or not - who can tell where a nuclear submarine is?)

[DJKillaQueen]

Tarot...Saddam had no WMDs (apart from the small amounts of poison used on the kurds).......I think that has been catagorically proven beyond doubt. The truth is that Saddam aim was to keep up an illusion of military might, not to intimidate us, but to keep Iran from ever attacking them again. It's a total myth that Saddam was ever war with the west. His fear was always Iran.

And no I am not too young to recollect or know what was happening at the time of the Falklands invasion either :)

H by that definition we should be invading any country that can affect our economy to our detriment. It's the kind of nonsense that pervaded the neo-con thinking that took us into Iraq in the first place.

Iraq is made up of four culturally different populations that hate each other. It is a hatred that goes back centuries. No amount of democracy is going to change that. Do people ever ask themselves why countries like Iraq ultimately end up being ruled by dictators? It takes a rod of iron to govern that kind of hatred. The naivity of the west in their understanding of these internal conflicts is astounding.

[Tarot]

Well. Saddam. cried wolf then and came unstuck.Its alright with hindsight to make exscuses for him,no one knew if he had

weapons hidden across boarders or in caves.

Like Iran saying they were not making nuclear weapons, and they are.

They had enough poison to murder helpless people and little babies, would you have liked that to be released over here.

No one has found the answer to the troubled people of the middle east,that is true.

Would one rally want to sit back and wonder,do they or dont they have a missile that could wipe a nation out.

That thought was not a luxury for the leaders at the time, it needed action.

If you are given power to make these decisions for the people who elected you, why should you be brought to book all

the time. Iran will be the next problem probably.P.S I thought you were younger D,J,K,Q.

[huncamunca]

you sir , are either a happy shopper level troll or a moron.

[Keef]

Ha ha! That is a top post.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Snorky is using his powers wisely today. See also "ethical dilemma" thread

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL Tarot.....no one is making excuses for Saddam just enlightening you on your poor knowledge of Iraq/ the middle-east and it's history (Saddam was never anywhere close to making nuclear anything btw).

[Tarot]

huncamunca Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you sir , are either a happy shopper level troll

> or a moron.

________________________

Moron is more your type .I have no interest in your comments.

Hughenot had a more mature answer. make an effort.

D.J.K.Q, I like making you laugh,education is what we all need so be my guest.

P,S Did you notice most of your knowledge is after the event,

[Huguenot]

I'm not saying that we should go to war over trade disputes DJKQ, although historically Britain goes to war for very few other reasons.

I'm saying that the threat to oil supplies threatens the existence of the UK, and this may well lead to war on the basis of national security. If you think that's nonsense then you need to read up on it a bit more.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision either. Personally I think the idea of a nation state is a tired 17th century concept that's well past it's sell-by date.

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't deny that resources have often been the reason for war (and will no doubt be so in the future). But what I don't buy is that Iraq was ever a threat to the UK or her oil supplies.

Tarot, I accept the point about hindsight but you also forget that weapons inspectors and the UN were arguing that there were no WMDs and that they only needed a few more months to prove that. It was ignored by the US. 9/11 was the excuse that the USA were looking for to invade a country the neo-cons had long seen as a strategic thorn to their dominence of the middle east. There was a neo con think tank report pre Bush jnrs election to president in which Iraq is described as such that 'should an opportunity present itself' be dealt with.

In truth Iraq was bankrupt (but not as bankrupt as America left it after the 20 bn national revenue was given to corrupt developers that basically stole it). Iraq is no more stable for the removal of Saddam and forget Western democracy. They don't want it.

[Huguenot]

So if you don't think the war was for oil, DJKQ, and you don't think it was for WMD, what do you think the war was for?

Why do you think they want to 'dominate' the Middle East and yet don't want to dominate, say, Sudan, Uganda, the Congo or Rwanda?

[Tarot]

The Terrorist attack on the two towers,was extremely provocative of that it is no doubt.

,Wars throughout time have been started for less,there has always been plundering by the victors.

I dont feel sorry for an evil dictator who personally shot dead children.

He was no better than Hitler.

Maybe they didnt want democracy.Their loss.

I think sometimes in life you have to see some people for what they really are.

Saddamn was bad.

No one likes war, we lost a lot of men too.

Pity is noble in the right place.

Maybe there is more to find out.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's a good question H. Personally I think the neo-cons were livid after Bush senior didn't invade after the liberation of Kuwait.....and didn't like Saddam constantly putting two fingers up to them. As to why has a lot to do with neo-con thinking on America's place in the world, both as an economic and military power, both of which have been diminishing for a while. So in short, the invasion of Iraq was about showing a military dominance imo. I really don't think that Bush jnr, Chaney, and Rumsfeld thought beyond that.

And yes Tarot....there is no doubt that Saddam and his family were extremely brutal and the world is a better place without them, but it has to be understood that the conflicts within Iraq are far bigger. A consquence of course of how the former Ottoman Empire was carved up by the British and French.

The kurds feel aggrieved because half of them live in Eastern Turkey and half in Northern Iraq (when they see themselves as one nation and indeed were for centuries). The same can be said of the shi-ites who populate Iran and southern Iraq.

The same can be said of the mountain range that runs accross northern Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tribes that populate those mountains have fought each other for centuries. Poorly educated nomadic mountain people who only come together when they have a common enemy to fight...be that the soviets in the past or America now. Pakistan has huge problems dealing with these northern tribes - who don't consider themselves Pakistanni at all. Poorly planned invasions by the US ia not going to change any culture going back centuries.

Long term....I can see Irag being carved up into northern and southern independent states. I can't see any other resolution to the entrenched hatred between those different cultural groups.

[Tarot]

It is a complex thing.

The middle east and places that Hugeonot mentioned, are still evolving.

Because of oil in the middle east, they have over the past century been thrust into technolog.

But brainwashing and not education,have made these people follow whoever promises.glory and heaven.

Education for the people,women and children too,freedom to live and not be mentally shackled.food and pleasant

places to live.

One day these countries will have that right,

Oil is relevent even more so now.

Everyone needs it.

If things come to a standstill,would we be amicable about it.

[huncamunca]

"The middle east and places that Hugeonot mentioned, are still evolving. "

You are wated here Tart -Ever though of of a career in the Diplomatic service ?

[SeanMacGabhann]

is Tarot really Liz Jones?

[DJKillaQueen]

It is indeed complicated and at some point I think we just have to accept that there are cultures we have no right to demand change from.

There is a feminist movement in both Iran and Saudi Arabia who do much the same as our own at the turn of the last century. They chip away bit by bit, apply pressure and change probably will come but it will take the same 50 or so years it took for the West to move foward in that respect. Trouble is that we expect change overnight even though every example shows that change more often than not has to come from within. And in that respect the patriarchy of some Islamic states is no different to that of our own up to the early-mid twentieth century.

Even fundamentalism has always posed more of a thread to the middle-east itself than the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, seen as the birth of modern fundamentalism, evolved in Egypt, as a reaction to internal capitalism. When the Shah was deposed from Iran (again an internal ideological struggle) the fear that fundamentalism would sweep accross the middle-east was unfounded. Even Osama Bin-Laden's real target was always the Saudi Royal Family (again an internal ideological struggle)....that's why they expelled him.

When Pakistan evolved nuclear capability we were warned of nuclear devastation between her and India......again, the real impact was to force the two countries to talk and indeed the US could never have invaded Afghanistan without the use of Pakistanni airspace. In effect, what nuclear capability tends to do for these countries is force the West to take them seriously and give them an equal say in global government (and it's often what these countries seek) without fear of attack/ bullying if they don't play to America's tune......Not quite the rogue state seeking to start a nuclear war is it?

9/11 was an opportunist strike and not really part of any concerted effort to bring down the West. It is the middle-east's strong attitude to internal terrorism and activism that sent the likes of Bin Laden (who is probably dead now) to amuse themselves with other targets.

Isreal remains the thorn in the region (Iran are more pre-occupied with her than the UK or America or anywhere else) and any aggravation towards America was previously beause of her support of Isreal.

It's only in the last decade or so (and primarily because of global media and internet) that terroist movements have been able to use the media to create 'fear'.....but it's a disproportionate fear because the power of terrorist groups to bring down any government is non-existent. We buy into it and the thinking of some governments is that it is good to have us kept afraid of something out there, irregardless of the truth of the real risk. The Cold War was a perfect example of that.

People seem to have forgotten that we lived with a far better funded and more equiped terrorist movement for decades...the IRA. Yes they planted bombs and people died but they never brought the Uk to her knees, because terrorism in itself never is enough to do that. America has never had any experience of mainland terrorism and her lack of perspective is obvious for all to see. Armies bring down countries...not disparate groups of fanatical nutters and a few home made bombs.