Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 29 Jan '10 19:11
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm

    Tony Blair has said the Iraq war made the world a safer place and he has "no regrets" about removing Saddam Hussein.

    In a robust defence of his decision to back war, Mr Blair said Saddam was a "monster and I believe he threatened not just the region but the world."


    ..

    Ok, I understand saddam was a volatile guy, and posed a threat to his neighbors, but still, was it really necessary for the UK to enter america's war? and isn't it a little dramatic to claim he was a threat to the world?
  2. 29 Jan '10 19:21 / 1 edit
    have you got your antennae up? .... i was just thinking about posting this ... got distracted ...
  3. 29 Jan '10 19:26
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    have you got your antennae up? .... i was just thinking about posting this ... got distracted ...
    Im psychic.
  4. 29 Jan '10 19:26
    the third nuke to be popped off in war, assuming it's not from a superpower, we'll be asking: why didn't we them harder and sooner?
  5. 29 Jan '10 19:31
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    the third nuke to be popped off in war, assuming it's not from a superpower, we'll be asking: why didn't we them harder and sooner?
    what exactly are you reffering to?

    why didn't we them harder and sooner?

    didn't what?
  6. 29 Jan '10 19:42
    well, look at why Blair is saying he'd do it again.

    Saddam was still hiding his programs, up to the end.
  7. 29 Jan '10 19:42
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    what exactly are you reffering to?

    [b]why didn't we them harder and sooner?


    didn't what?[/b]
    oops, i dropped a few bits:

    why didn't we hit them harder and sooner?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jan '10 19:46
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, look at why Blair is saying he'd do it again.

    Saddam was still hiding his programs, up to the end.
    You do realize that he had nothing (at least WMD-wise) to hide? Or do I have to dig up the US report by Duelfer(?) again?
  9. 29 Jan '10 19:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, look at why Blair is saying he'd do it again.

    Saddam was still hiding his programs, up to the end.
    Yes, I understand that.

    what I don't understand is why blair decided to get involved, why he decided to take action without planning what to do with iraq after saddam's removal, and where he got the authority to decide the future of other countries.

    edit: no1 has a point, there were no WMDs, which suggests there were other reasons for the invasion (Im thinking money).
  10. 29 Jan '10 19:48
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, look at why Blair is saying he'd do it again.

    Saddam was still hiding his programs, up to the end.
    He hid them so well, in fact, that never a trace of these programs was found. Quite the magician, Saddam.
  11. 29 Jan '10 19:50
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    oops, i dropped a few bits:

    why didn't we [b]hit
    them harder and sooner?[/b]
    who said the US and UK have the duty and the right to invade every country in the world that has some crazy leader who enjoys making threats?
  12. 29 Jan '10 19:51
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Yes, I understand that.

    what I don't understand is why blair decided to get involved, why he decided to take action without planning what to do with iraq after saddam's removal, and where he got the authority to decide the future of other countries.
    It's an interesting question why Blair really decided to go to war with Iraq. Was it really just sucking up to the Americans, or was there more involved?
  13. 29 Jan '10 19:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It's an interesting question why Blair really decided to go to war with Iraq. Was it really just sucking up to the Americans, or was there more involved?
    Im guessing he must have benefited from it somehow, I don't think tony blair could be subserviant to the US to the extent of going to war.
  14. 29 Jan '10 19:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You do realize that he had nothing (at least WMD-wise) to hide? Or do I have to dig up the US report by Duelfer(?) again?
    dig it up.
  15. 29 Jan '10 19:58
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    who said the US and UK have the duty and the right to invade every country in the world that has some crazy leader who enjoys making threats?
    what about a country that has the:

    - funds to carry out the threats?

    - prior history of carrying out the threats?

    - prior history of concealing weapons programs?

    how many match that profile?