Terror Bomb in London

[Sharkith]

nope.

[Xest]

Yes he could have. Going to war on evidence that was more flimsy than a pair of French kinckers is honestly insane.

That's the point though, he likely had no idea back then that the evidence was flimsy, just because we know that now doesn't mean he knew that was the case back then, I doubt very much Mr Blair is phsycic You can't judge him on what we and he knows now - you have to judge him on what he knew then.

If you were told that there's 3 people in the house next door to you with a track record of doing terrorist attacks on civilians that definetely had explosives, are you telling me you'd just ignore it to err on the side of caution in case they were just hoarding the explosives to do a demolition job on an old building and had given up their terrorist ways?

It's the same situation, Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, he's also launched scuds at Israel, if we thought he'd aquired chemical, nuclear or biological weapons with the range to hit other countries then I can see why disarming him was the best option. The real issue is that there was nothing to disarm and that's the problem - the fact Blair went to war was imo a good choice, the fact he went to war on weak/incorrect/doctored evidence is the real issue and whilst we'll never know what he really did and didn't know I don't think you can fault him for going to war IF (and that's a big if) he truly did beleive the intelligence he was given. What if Iraq had had the weapons, the intelligence hadn't been faulty, he really did have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons with long range capacity, would you still say he'd done the wrong thing and that Saddam should've been left in power with long range WMD capabilities?

[Ankh Morpork]

The land was already more or less in ruins after the last war. Also, when Saddam dared bush to go on world wide television and do a live satelite discussion with him they called it 'an unserious proposition'. A land with as good intelligence as U.k should have known better. Saddam had rejected the terrorists before in 1998 (think it was) when they came to him for support. The 'Axis of Evil' have one country that really was and is a threat against world peace and thats North Korea..but I seriously doubt that they dare to attack them. (especially not with china so close to the battlefield...you never know what china might do)

But I know you wont agree anyway Xest Blair!

Edit: oh btw, in the first iraqi war....how many scuds did he launch? 7-8? and they didnt even hit their targets fully or contain any chemicals.

Edit2: Imo it's weird why they attack iraq when most of the terrorists are Saudi Arabians!

/Ankh

[Cyfr]

I had an argument with Tony Blair in my dream. Then I became labour.
It's a sign.
Vote Labour!
Now!

[Ankh Morpork]

Your always going on about your dreams mate...to bad, one day you will wake up and find out that reality isnt at all as you imagined it to be!

/Ankh

[Cyfr]

It's what you make it

[Xest]

The land was already more or less in ruins after the last war. Also, when Saddam dared bush to go on world wide television and do a live satelite discussion with him they called it 'an unserious proposition'. A land with as good intelligence as U.k should have known better. Saddam had rejected the terrorists before in 1998 (think it was) when they came to him for support. The 'Axis of Evil' have one country that really was and is a threat against world peace and thats North Korea..but I seriously doubt that they dare to attack them. (especially not with china so close to the battlefield...you never know what china might do)

But I know you wont agree anyway Xest Blair!

Edit: oh btw, in the first iraqi war....how many scuds did he launch? 7-8? and they didnt even hit their targets fully or contain any chemicals.

Edit2: Imo it's weird why they attack iraq when most of the terrorists are Saudi Arabians!

/Ankh

It's a little unfair to say I wont agree, I understand yours and Sharkith's point of view totally however as I say I'm partly playing devils advocate to try and get you to understand that there's a whole other side to the story, not just the side you beleive the one that's somewhat horribly clouded by media/political bias and anti-war propoganda. You have to have a clear view of both sides of the story to make a much fairer decision about what you think really happened rather than blindly beleiving what you've been told.

I agree with you about North Korea and the issue there of the West being somewhat scared applies to Taiwan too. If Taiwan itself or the ROC as a whole try and declare independance from mainland China (PRC) then China will invade Taiwan, although America has shown support to Taiwan in the past by sending their fleet over it's likely the yanks will not want full scale involvement - their official stance is that they don't want two China's even though their actions so far say otherwise. Essentially the real threats to world peace are the ones the West are already too scared to deal with - the idea behind attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and wanting to attack Iran and such is to disarm them before they do become too scary to deal with as North Korea and the PRC already are now.

[Sharkith]

That's the point though, he likely had no idea back then that the evidence was flimsy, just because we know that now doesn't mean he knew that was the case back then, I doubt very much Mr Blair is phsycic You can't judge him on what we and he knows now - you have to judge him on what he knew then.

If you were told that there's 3 people in the house next door to you with a track record of doing terrorist attacks on civilians that definetely had explosives, are you telling me you'd just ignore it to err on the side of caution in case they were just hoarding the explosives to do a demolition job on an old building and had given up their terrorist ways?

It's the same situation, Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past, he's also launched scuds at Israel, if we thought he'd aquired chemical, nuclear or biological weapons with the range to hit other countries then I can see why disarming him was the best option. The real issue is that there was nothing to disarm and that's the problem - the fact Blair went to war was imo a good choice, the fact he went to war on weak/incorrect/doctored evidence is the real issue and whilst we'll never know what he really did and didn't know I don't think you can fault him for going to war IF (and that's a big if) he truly did beleive the intelligence he was given. What if Iraq had had the weapons, the intelligence hadn't been faulty, he really did have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons with long range capacity, would you still say he'd done the wrong thing and that Saddam should've been left in power with long range WMD capabilities?

In all of this you have not once addressed the fact that Alistar Campbell made the presentation of the evidence stronger than it was in the original dossier. You have to acknowledge that Campbell at least knew that the evidence as presented was not strong enough - and that he wanted it presented as unequivocal. Otherwise why instruct changes to the report? So if Campbell knew the evidence was dodgy Blair surely knew it was equivocal?

When faced with equivocal evidnece you have a choice - to err on the side of caution and avoid conflict or to err on the side of war. We know he did the latter and we know he did it on the basis of evidence that had to be 'presented' in such a way as to be convincing. In other words he is not as pure as you are trying to make him out. I am actually being nice by saying he made a mistake because the alternative is to believe that he or Campbell did it unpurpose. So I am afraid it remains a kind of mystery.

Sharkith

[Sharkith]

It's a little unfair to say I wont agree, I understand yours and Sharkith's point of view totally however as I say I'm partly playing devils advocate to try and get you to understand that there's a whole other side to the story, not just the side you beleive the one that's somewhat horribly clouded by media/political bias and anti-war propoganda. You have to have a clear view of both sides of the story to make a much fairer decision about what you think really happened rather than blindly beleiving what you've been told.

I agree with you about North Korea and the issue there of the West being somewhat scared applies to Taiwan too. If Taiwan itself or the ROC as a whole try and declare independance from mainland China (PRC) then China will invade Taiwan, although America has shown support to Taiwan in the past by sending their fleet over it's likely the yanks will not want full scale involvement - their official stance is that they don't want two China's even though their actions so far say otherwise. Essentially the real threats to world peace are the ones the West are already too scared to deal with - the idea behind attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and wanting to attack Iran and such is to disarm them before they do become too scary to deal with as North Korea and the PRC already are now.

nerf work I have to leave the office for a few days data collection so sorry I can't continue this discussion right now which is very interesting. I might be able to post again on Friday so please continue.

I know your playing devil's advocate but in so doing all you are doing is being forced to assert that you believe the government's spin. I am not so sure that I would want to adopt that position nor would I think it is really the best position simply because it is on the opposite side of the media. I would be much more cautious than you in trying to assert that by doing so you are approaching the 'truth'. I do hold back a bit and I therefore do not try to accept received wisdom - it is also part of my training to not accept face value explanations.

It is very elusive for you to state a) that your playing devil's advocate and then b) that you have to have both sides of the story to know what really went on. Either that means that you are sitting on the fence or that maybe you like me really don't have a clue either. Wouldn't it be better to say so though?

Sharkith

p.s. what do you think of the emerging news that the bombers may well have came from the UK? Surely this puts a whole different view on the idyllic country that survived through this with it's 'war' spirit?

[Ankh Morpork]

...and lets not forget that the U.N was overrun by the Yanks totally.

/Ankh