Terror Bomb in London

[Ankh Morpork]

Just because you or I don't know the "real reasons" as to why things kicked off it doesn't mean that they went in blindly. Your assuming that someone smart and savvy enough to make it to the top Job in the UK went to war cos his mate asked him to. Do you really really think give Tony Blair's track record he would do that?. The WMD was crap we all know that, and it's odd that you and other people keep focusing on it, yes we know its crap, it was so weak it's a joke, so ask your self why they really went in rather than the resson they told us.

Get of that rather popular and over loaded bandwagon of yours come up with something new!

Imo if there are any other reason he should have stated them before going to war since he is risking the lifes of his people. No, I dont think it was one guy who walked up to him and tricked him, it takes more than that.

You tell me to get off the over loaded bandwagon of yours, please mate...before telling me to ditch those facts it would be nice if you could come up with some facts yourself instead thinking that your goverment was right without actually presenting anything that proves the opposite.

Yes, the things I say have been said many MANY times before and it will be said again...but does that mean they are false?

Edit: I dont belive everything just cos said in black and white, I dont belive everything we're being told by our leaders. I might be over suspicious about whats going on in the world today, but I sure as hell wont defend anyone for sending people to war without any proof. (cos even if there are other 'reasons' he gave the reason for joining in the attack and they were wrong.

/Ankh

[Ankh Morpork]

...but I do admit that it would be nice to see some nice facts from me too

/Ankh

[Ankh Morpork]

I don't think you really can blame Tony personally for his intelligence departments failings - he can't be expected to keep an eye on everyone to make sure they're doing their jobs right as far as I'm concerned he does his job well, it's just all to often other people he depends on let him down as they appear to have done in the Iraq case.

Aye, but at the same time it was abit too big mistake to just let him get away with it imo.

/Ankh

[Mojo]

Imo if there are any other reason he should have stated them before going to war since he is risking the lifes of his people. No, I dont think it was one guy who walked up to him and tricked him, it takes more than that.

You tell me to get off the over loaded bandwagon of yours, please mate...before telling me to ditch those facts it would be nice if you could come up with some facts yourself instead thinking that your goverment was right without actually presenting anything that proves the opposite.

Yes, the things I say have been said many MANY times before and it will be said again...but does that mean they are false?

/Ankh

Governments can't tell people everything Ankh, they never have they never will it's a fact of life. So maybe try to assume things you haven't been told and work out some reaons why, come up with your own theories.

And no I don't discuss theories because they are just that...theories so it is pointless. But i am not going to beleive that Bush and Blair got suckered into going to war over such weak reasons, they might have pretended to be suckered or used some info they could blame on being suckered, but i find it very hard to beleive that 2 governments went to war because of WMD's I think that was just their PUBLIC resons to go, so what was the Real Reason i wonder?. We are probably never going to know, not untill 80 or so years has passed and the info (what's left of it by then) goes into the public domain. (freedom of information act)

/Edit

I think the US had a reason for going and that the British had thier reasons for supporting, I don't think that the US or British reasons were directly realted. I dont think the Birtish supported the war as such but rather supported the US in going to war if that makes sense?

[Argyleyn]

Tbh he did it on purpose, as someone said (sorry but i cba to look for the quote) it doesn't take a genius to realise that a country under a paraoid and strict embargo for 13 years that was like the US backyard (all the years since the first gulf war us planes were flying and bombarding Iraq from time to time for no apparent reason) doesn't have the resources to get WMD.

And tbh, who's the judge of who has WMD or not? And even if they had WMD why would they use them? What are they? Dr.Evil, the crazy scientist who has built a nuclear bomb on his isolated island in the middle of the pacific and wants to blow up the planet because he is mad? No, Saddam was a politician like any other and he was mostly concerned with keeping his power and i can't see how bombing US or UK would help him. His agenda might have been the wrong one, but like any other he was still acting based on reason.

[Xest]

Tbh he did it on purpose, as someone said (sorry but i cba to look for the quote) it doesn't take a genius to realise that a country under a paraoid and strict embargo for 13 years that was like the US backyard (all the years since the first gulf war us planes were flying and bombarding Iraq from time to time for no apparent reason) doesn't have the resources to get WMD.

And tbh, who's the judge of who has WMD or not? And even if they had WMD why would they use them? What are they? Dr.Evil, the crazy scientist who has built a nuclear bomb on his isolated island in the middle of the pacific and wants to blow up the planet because he is mad? No, Saddam was a politician like any other and he was mostly concerned with keeping his power and i can't see how bombing US or UK would help him. His agenda might have been the wrong one, but like any other he was still acting based on reason.

That's the point behind Bush's axis of evil claim though, it's not that the countries themselves are a problem, the real issue is who's hands the weapons those countries produce get into. For example, Afghanistan wasn't a threat whatsoever as a country, but the terrorist training camps, the fact it was used as a base to try and develop some chemical weapons and so on meant that the people the country was helping were a very real threaten - after all it's pretty likely that's where 9/11 was indeed planned. The same with Saddam - he has a history of using chemical weapons, if he were to allow terrorists access to them we'd see far more than 50 dead last Thursday, we'd see thousands, potentially millions. The issue isn't about allowing specific countries to become nuclear, biological or chemical capable, the issue is whether those countries can secure those weapons and only keep them as a deterrant and nothing else - if we're sure a country can't do that, they need to be disarmed.

Aye, but at the same time it was abit too big mistake to just let him get away with it imo.

He hasn't really got anything to get away with, as I say it's the intelligence agncies to blame and IIRC some people were sacked/forced to resign from those agencies since and I'm sure reviews and reforms of the intelligence service have certainly taken place. The fact Tony was voted back in shows that a lot of people agree that he probably did the best he could with the information he was given and under the circumstances.

[Ankh Morpork]

He hasn't really got anything to get away with

I was talking about you and mojo trying to take the blame off him

Edit: it's like with bush/rumsfeld trying to find others to blame for the stuff they did in iraq against prisoners...always easier to blame the ones less high rank than themself. Not that your doing that, but I would think Blair is doing the same.

/Ankh

[Xest]

I was talking about you and mojo trying to take the blame off him

Edit: it's like with bush/rumsfeld trying to find others to blame for the stuff they did in iraq against prisoners...always easier to blame the ones less high rank than themself. Not that your doing that, but I would think Blair is doing the same.

/Ankh

It is the same thing, but how can you say "the stuff they did in iraq against prisoners", I'm sorry but I didn't see Bush or Rumsfeld abusing prisoners in any of those photos, I saw typical soldiers - again it's them and anyone above them that knew about it and didn't stop it that's to blame.

With regards to saying it's easier to blame the ones of lower ranks, that's somewhat hypocritical because essentially you're blaming Bush/Tony because they're a single easy target and you simply don't know the names of the people who are really at fault. The only circumstance in which you could fairly blame Bush for the prisoner abuse is if Bush did it himself, if it was his orders that they do it or if he knew about it and didn't act on it.

I hate Bush, but you can't blame him for something that he had no real power over. The same goes for Tony.

[Ankh Morpork]

It is the same thing, but how can you say "the stuff they did in iraq against prisoners", I'm sorry but I didn't see Bush or Rumsfeld abusing prisoners in any of those photos, I saw typical soldiers - again it's them and anyone above them that knew about it and didn't stop it that's to blame.

With regards to saying it's easier to blame the ones of lower ranks, that's somewhat hypocritical because essentially you're blaming Bush/Tony because they're a single easy target and you simply don't know the names of the people who are really at fault. The only circumstance in which you could fairly blame Bush for the prisoner abuse is if Bush did it himself, if it was his orders that they do it or if he knew about it and didn't act on it.

I hate Bush, but you can't blame him for something that he had no real power over. The same goes for Tony.

I guess I can't, but at the same time it's very suspicious why rumsfeld came free when he honestly had no real defence when he was sitting infront of the senate trying to defend himself. And your kind of stuck in the beliefs that the leaders arent responsible or aware of whats going on. Well, perhaps not stuck but you keep trying to take the blame of them. I agree that there are incidents they might not be aware of but the war we are talking about surely cant be blamed on others than the ones giving the final orders. Sure they could have fooled but I'm pretty sure they double check everything before signing it. (atleast when its as important as starting a war).

/Ankh

[Xest]

I guess I can't, but at the same time it's very suspicious why rumsfeld came free when he honestly had no real defence when he was sitting infront of the senate trying to defend himself. And your kind of stuck in the beliefs that the leaders arent responsible or aware of whats going on. Well, perhaps not stuck but you keep trying to take the blame of them. I agree that there are incidents they might not be aware of but the war we are talking about surely cant be blamed on others than the ones giving the final orders. Sure they could have fooled but I'm pretty sure they double check everything before signing it. (atleast when its as important as starting a war).

/Ankh

I do know where you're coming from, that a boss should be responsible for his companies actions etc. but I think the thing to remember is that it's different for politicians - there's so much character assassination from the media, from other political parties and so on that you have to take it with a pinch of salt and realise that the politicians mostly, other than the odd corrupt ones are probably doing the best they can. In the case of a goverment the prime minister is essentially a front man for the entire countries infrustructure from waste disposal, to the army, to overseeing some business practices and so on - it's so broad and covers so many people I think you just have to cut them some slack when things go wrong and realise that the press are out to make as big a meal of it as they can, especially if the press in question are anti-Labour.