Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[skywalker]

In the paraphrased words of our Fearless Leader re: The War On Terror, "Either you're with us or against us!". I guess that means that Spain, through the voice of the people are now America's enemy. How odd for elected officials to listen to what the people want... how refreshing.

Mark

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Donut: Well I care. I care because my elected leader told me we were going to war because there was an imminent threat that Saddam would use WoMD against us. That is how he sold the war to us, that is how he sold the war to his own party, that is how he sold the war to the House of Commons. 45 minutes he said! That was how long it would take Saddam to fire his WoMD at us! How on earth can he have got it so wrong. I can see that the end result of the war was to remove an evil dictator. But that wasn't put forward by Blair until he realised there were no WoMD If Blair had said that was the reason for war I would support him. But at the back of my mind I can't help thinking - this was the first time that Britain had gone to war on the basis of intelligence reports, and they were totally wrong, how can I possibly trust Tony Blair any more? Is it right for a leader to mislead the people about the reason for war - even if the end results are beneficial? He might not be so lucky next time. We all shake our heads when we hear about terrorism - but deep down the West only do anything about terrorism when their interests are threatened. What are we going to do about Chechen terrorism, about Maoist terrorists in Nepal, about terrorists in the Sudan where genocide is about to take place? The answer is nothing will be done - because it doesn't affect us. That's why Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had some links to Middle East terrorist groups - but those groups weren't threatening the US/UK, the war on Iraq was part of a whole different agenda! An agenda, that Richard Clarke's revelations at the weekend show, is slowly emerging.

I think you're right on the money here. I'd just like to reiterate what I've said before on this issue - I think the war would have still been wrong if they had had WMD's, but what really pisses me off is that Blair and Bush quite obviously lied about it and now don't even have the grace to admit so.

I would actually have a lot of respect for Blair if he said that he had only wanted to go to war to remove a dictator (the reason he focuses on now, as obviously its the only one that bears any weight at all) but had to lie about WMDs in order to get the public behind him. His line has always been that it didn't matter if the public didn't agree as he knew he was doing the right thing anyway - if he were to really think that then he shouldn't be skulking around hiding behind obvious lies. It does him no credit and merely exxagerates the real reason he went to war, which had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs or even brutal dictators (because, lets face it, we support enough of those around the world) and instead had everything to do with power politics.

[ 03-22-2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Actually, *you* have to prove the link to Al'Qaida

Why? I never said it was linked to Al'Qaeda. Read what I write.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you're in an odd mood of late. Not that I don't approve. Just... odd. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: We all shake our heads when we hear about terrorism - but deep down the West only do anything about terrorism when their interests are threatened. What are we going to do about Chechen terrorism, about Maoist terrorists in Nepal, about terrorists in the Sudan where genocide is about to take place? The answer is nothing will be done - because it doesn't affect us. That's why Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had some links to Middle East terrorist groups - but those groups weren't threatening the US/UK, the war on Iraq was part of a whole different agenda! An agenda, that Richard Clarke's revelations at the weekend show, is slowly emerging.

Ah but see it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the West intervenes, they're being imperialist. If they don't they're ignoring human rights atrocities. All depending on what the media can use to sell more advertising space.

I personally would like to see the west intervene in Nepal, Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Chechnya etc. In fact I support Christian missionaries who do try and intervene, as it's individuals rather than governments trying to ease peoples lives. I told you of the church in Sri Lanka helping war victims that I was invited to. These types of people care, but don't impose. Caring for it's own sake.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: I think you're right on the money here. I'd just like to reiterate what I've said before on this issue - I think the war would have still been wrong if they had had WMD's, but what really pisses me off is that Blair and Bush quite obviously lied about it and now don't even have the grace to admit so. I would actually have a lot of respect for Blair if he said that he had only wanted to go to war to remove a dictator (the reason he focuses on now, as obviously its the only one that bears any weight at all) but had to lie about WMDs in order to get the public behind him. His line has always been that it didn't matter if the public didn't agree as he knew he was doing the right thing anyway - if he were to really think that then he shouldn't be skulking around hiding behind obvious lies. It does him no credit and merely exxagerates the real reason he went to war, which had absolutely nothing to do with WMDs or even brutal dictators (because, lets face it, we support enough of those around the world) and instead had everything to do with power politics.

I don't hink Blair lied. I think he genuinely believed the information he was given. You don't risk your career or your country over a lie. He had enormous conviction to pursue an extremely unpopular cause. Most democratic leaders are populists. I believe he honestly thought Britain was at risk, and that he was doing the right thing.

I know a great nmber of British, who though they disagree with his decisions, agree his motives were correct. Misguidance is not as evil as deliberate deception, and if he was wrong, I believe it was regarding the former.

Eeven, so, I am glad Hussein is gone.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you're in an odd mood of late. Not that I don't approve. Just... odd. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

LOL!!! Please elaborate... what do you mean?

[Timber Loftis]

I mean you're batting for a different team than I'm used to you batting for -- and no, I don't mean you're gay. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Ah but see it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the West intervenes, they're being imperialist. If they don't they're ignoring human rights atrocities.

Yep. Always a conundrum. And, when used too often, it makes a nation just decide to do what the hell it pleases.

[Gab]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Gab: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I just ignored it because of the line "most people". I can't stand it when people use the moral weight of unknown others to justify their own opinions. Who are these "most people" Let them speak for themselves. Otherwise have the balls to stand up on your own opinion and simply say "I can't stand Bush".

If you can't stand it, fine but I'm telling you because that it's true. When I say most I'm refering to people over the world particularly the Spanish, Germans and French. Heck many people even from Britain (America's closest allies) hate Bush. There was lots of protesting upon his arrival and there was even concern for Bushs' safety.

George W. Bush is hated more in the rest of the world than any other U.S. president before him . [/QUOTE]Hating policies is not hating the person.

Secondly, more people in America do NOT hate Bush, than do.

The quantifiable proof?

Only 50% of Americans are motivated enough to vote. Of those 50% half voted the guy into office. So thats 25% of Americans who don't like Bush enough to vote against him. I would define hating a politician as doing everything you can to remove them from office.

Let's just see how many people vote against him then eh?

You are wrong Gab. The majority of the world are indifferent, not hating Bush. [/QUOTE]Uh no. I shouldn't have used the word hate so instead I'll use the word dislike and I'm not referring to the United States. I mean that the majority of people in the rest of the people in the world hate or dislike President Bush.

[ 03-22-2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[skywalker]

So Americans can't play along, Gab?


Mark