Conquer Club

I am watching it now, and it is great to see the rational for the war. I have much more respect for Tony Blair for standing before a commission and answering all questions than I do for Bush, who is now very far form public eye.
I would love to see Bush before a similar panel but I doubt it would happen.
To the British.

Not watched any of the Blair questioning yet, but the whole commission so far has been very good at getting some decent answers. Interesting to see what he actually said when I get the chance to watch it.

Has anyone even seen Bush since last January? I don't think I had even seen him in the news until the Haiti earthquake.

The FRONTLINE two part documentary Bush's War aired on PBS about two years ago
and presents a lot of the Iraq War story really well.

oVo wrote:The FRONTLINE two part documentary Bush's War aired on PBS about two years ago
and presents a lot of the Iraq War story really well.

Interesting link, thanks for dropping it.

by captainwalrus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:57 pm

I am watching it now, and it is great to see the rational for the war. I have much more respect for Tony Blair for standing before a commission and answering all questions than I do for Bush, who is now very far form public eye.
I would love to see Bush before a similar panel but I doubt it would happen.
To the British.

i think that families who soldier die in Iraq not have respect,because if he not lie before,these guys will be still alive. Im not english,but i think that these war its not need for britain, or maybe im wrong?

qwert wrote:

by captainwalrus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:57 pm

I am watching it now, and it is great to see the rational for the war. I have much more respect for Tony Blair for standing before a commission and answering all questions than I do for Bush, who is now very far form public eye.
I would love to see Bush before a similar panel but I doubt it would happen.
To the British.

i think that families who soldier die in Iraq not have respect,because if he not lie before,these guys will be still alive. Im not english,but i think that these war its not need for britain, or maybe im wrong?

Can you say for sure that without their herioc sacrifice, the world would be more peaceful that it currently is?

Tony Blair believes that Saddam Hussein was a "monster", and that the lives of these soldiers was well-worth the destruction of Saddam Hussein. It is also believed that the war in Afghanistan is occupying the finance and time of many terrorist organisations, and if they had freedom from the belligerence of our soldiers, they would be capable of much more destruction, and on a wider scale.

Just throwing it out there. Oh, and for all who haven't seen the inquiry, here's some information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8488504.stm

obliterationX wrote:

qwert wrote:

by captainwalrus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:57 pm

I am watching it now, and it is great to see the rational for the war. I have much more respect for Tony Blair for standing before a commission and answering all questions than I do for Bush, who is now very far form public eye.
I would love to see Bush before a similar panel but I doubt it would happen.
To the British.

i think that families who soldier die in Iraq not have respect,because if he not lie before,these guys will be still alive. Im not english,but i think that these war its not need for britain, or maybe im wrong?

Can you say for sure that without their herioc sacrifice, the world would be more peaceful that it currently is?

Tony Blair believes that Saddam Hussein was a "monster", and that the lives of these soldiers was well-worth the destruction of Saddam Hussein. It is also believed that the war in Afghanistan is occupying the finance and time of many terrorist organisations, and if they had freedom from the belligerence of our soldiers, they would be capable of much more destruction, and on a wider scale.

Just throwing it out there. Oh, and for all who haven't seen the inquiry, here's some information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8488504.stm

And if Tony Blair really believes his rhetoric, then he's completely misled. There are plenty of other "monsters" out there. The difference between Saddam Hussein and for example the Saudi King is that the Saudi King plays ball with the US. That's about it. Those two guys are both terrible to their own people. Actually, the Saudis are largely responsible for this extremist Islamic thought due to their many madrassahs set up around the Middle East that teach such things. Lots of these schools can be used to forward money to terrorist organizations, and many terrorists have been taught at such places (of course, not all that are taught there become terrorists). Justifying the invasion of Iraq and the loss of American and its Allies' lives because "Saddam was a bad man," really doesn't make sense when one steps back and looks at other dictatorships that we support.



As for Afghanistan, that war is mostly about the centralized government forces and their warlord buddies pitted against the rural forces. As for terrorism, those Al-Qaeda bases have been destroyed years ago, and the terrorist acts you see there are mainly directed at the foreign forces--mainly because those foreign forces are there. Had the US had not become so heavily involved for such a long time in AFG, then nearly all of those fighting against the US, ISAF, and Karzai and Co. wouldn't have joined terrorist cells to attack the US, they'd have continued the civil war by joining up with opposing warlords. Also, look at Pakistan before 2003 and afterwards. Before the US became involved in Afghanistan, Pakistan was much more stable, and had calm relations with its tribal region in the Northwest, along its borders with Afghanistan, and with the Pakistan-"Taliban." Now it's been facing many major terrorist bombings within its borders that have killed 1000s, and recently they launched a war into that NW tribal region (from much pressure from the US). Things were fine before then, but the US has just agitated everything. The US has created more problems, has created more generations hateful towards the US and its allies, and has done much in destabilizing the entire region. And if one were of the opinion that what we've done was effective for stopping terrorism, then they'd be badly mistaken. We've only made it worse.

(I'm not directing this personally at you ObX, nor do I believe that you believe something counter to my points. I'm just directing this at what you've thrown out here.)

Can you say for sure that without their herioc sacrifice, the world would be more peaceful that it currently is?

Tony Blair believes that Saddam Hussein was a "monster", and that the lives of these soldiers was well-worth the destruction of Saddam Hussein. It is also believed that the war in Afghanistan is occupying the finance and time of many terrorist organisations, and if they had freedom from the belligerence of our soldiers, they would be capable of much more destruction, and on a wider scale.

Just throwing it out there. Oh, and for all who haven't seen the inquiry, here's some information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8488504.stm

Heroic sacrifice?!?-one day you patrol on streets of Basra and sudenly hidden bomb explode and you are dead-where you here see heroic sacrifice?
Britain whas in danger from Saddam Hussein and Iraq?????????????????? Are you serious? Pure and simple they die for nothing,only to give some small support to US Invasion,nothing else. Iraq army its poor and bad equiped,with low morale,and US army will crush without any help. And i think that Iraq and Afghanistan its two diferent things,not one. Stick with Topic name. If britains so importan,so why they move all soldiers out of Iraq then, because situation in Iraq its not cold,and maybe in some hiding place,still posess weapons for mass destructions? I just want to say,that Britain dont have troubles with Terrorist before Iraq invasion. or maybe again i miss something?

qwert wrote:Heroic sacrifice?!?

Oh, they are heroes. Just let's get that straight.

qwert wrote:

Can you say for sure that without their herioc sacrifice, the world would be more peaceful that it currently is?

Tony Blair believes that Saddam Hussein was a "monster", and that the lives of these soldiers was well-worth the destruction of Saddam Hussein. It is also believed that the war in Afghanistan is occupying the finance and time of many terrorist organisations, and if they had freedom from the belligerence of our soldiers, they would be capable of much more destruction, and on a wider scale.

Just throwing it out there. Oh, and for all who haven't seen the inquiry, here's some information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8488504.stm

Heroic sacrifice?!?-one day you patrol on streets of Basra and sudenly hidden bomb explode and you are dead-where you here see heroic sacrifice?
Britain whas in danger from Saddam Hussein and Iraq?????????????????? Are you serious? Pure and simple they die for nothing,only to give some small support to US Invasion,nothing else. Iraq army its poor and bad equiped,with low morale,and US army will crush without any help. And i think that Iraq and Afghanistan its two diferent things,not one. Stick with Topic name. If britains so importan,so why they move all soldiers out of Iraq then, because situation in Iraq its not cold,and maybe in some hiding place,still posess weapons for mass destructions? I just want to say,that Britain dont have troubles with Terrorist before Iraq invasion. or maybe again i miss something?

"Throwing it out there" - I quote from my post.

I hope someone can respond to this fellow who is just as emotional about the subject.

qwert wrote:
Heroic sacrifice?!?

Oh, they are heroes. Just let's get that straight.

First dont put sentence out of contest.

Second-im not muslim,or English-and if you think that its correct to start war with false arguments,then fine by me. People all ready open hes eyes,and i must say that in Western Countries had so many demonstrations abouth Iraq war,where is mine country that whas minor. If you think that its good to have bad relations with muslim people,then again fine by me-this is yours country,and you have right to do what you want.
Sorry if im been insulting.

qwert wrote:

Can you say for sure that without their herioc sacrifice, the world would be more peaceful that it currently is?

Tony Blair believes that Saddam Hussein was a "monster", and that the lives of these soldiers was well-worth the destruction of Saddam Hussein. It is also believed that the war in Afghanistan is occupying the finance and time of many terrorist organisations, and if they had freedom from the belligerence of our soldiers, they would be capable of much more destruction, and on a wider scale.

Just throwing it out there. Oh, and for all who haven't seen the inquiry, here's some information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8488504.stm

Heroic sacrifice?!?-one day you patrol on streets of Basra and sudenly hidden bomb explode and you are dead-where you here see heroic sacrifice?
Britain whas in danger from Saddam Hussein and Iraq?????????????????? Are you serious? Pure and simple they die for nothing,only to give some small support to US Invasion,nothing else. Iraq army its poor and bad equiped,with low morale,and US army will crush without any help. And i think that Iraq and Afghanistan its two diferent things,not one. Stick with Topic name. If britains so importan,so why they move all soldiers out of Iraq then, because situation in Iraq its not cold,and maybe in some hiding place,still posess weapons for mass destructions? I just want to say,that Britain dont have troubles with Terrorist before Iraq invasion. or maybe again i miss something?

They are hero's, they went to a place full of danger knowing that they likely wont come back, and instead of running away they faced it because they were told its right... (now weather or not that is a lie, and that the soilders were lied to that is another story)
Iraq and Afghan are tied together but yes they are also seperate...
where do you think they might have ran to after they started getting killed in iraq? with poor boarder patrols all around that area... well why not run to Afghanistan... and Afghan was once run by the Taliban, dont forget that... so their networks can be very large in that country.... beyond that Afghan has only been a democracy for a short period and they are having issues with the Taliban trying to take back control... so we try to help...

As for the Iraq invasion... yes U.S. did crush the Iraq army... but for someone to not consider Iraq a threat, that is rather niave... Iraq tried to take over kuwait, and their oil is rather important... why not take out the "monster" and put a democracy in... that way the oil still flows .... (psstt if you didint know but most "modern" weapons dont work well without oil... and the large amount of ships, guns, air planes, missiles etc etc means we need a lot of oil)...

Now you may gather that i am blaming the war on Oil and im really not... i figure there were WMD's found... most over look that we all found MiG fulcrums buried in the desert, full operational... and should you load those up with bombs that Iraq had the ability to get... and say go bomb a country that is worse off then Iraq... well... wouldnt you consider a couple thousand deaths from the bombs and the following problems caused by those bombs Mass Destruction? i know i do...

The reason the brits pulled out is just like the U.S. is slowly pulling out, we are giving more and more control to the ppl of iraq to see if they can hold themselves up... slowly taking off the training wheels as it were...

and you are missing quite a few things, its called being a ally for one, we back each other up... two Brits did have issues with terrorist, i think before 9/11 and the following invasion... there was the subway attacks... or it was soon after 9/11 i cannot remember...


For any american's who do not support the war... thats fine support the troops... its all anyone can ask... but beyond that... I find it hard to believe that after 9/11 that anyone in america didint want blood for what the terrorists did...

did i win that easily... please someone quick argue against me so i dont think im the expert on this subject..

morph wrote:did i win that easily... please someone quick argue against me so i dont think im the expert on this subject..

We can nit-pick on details about Iraq pre-2003, but that wasn't really a major point of yours.

But I do agree with that idea of supporting one's troops, which doesn't also mean supporting the war. For whatever reasons of the government, those soldiers don't deserve a cold shoulder by their fellow citizens at home.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

morph wrote:did i win that easily... please someone quick argue against me so i dont think im the expert on this subject..

We can nit-pick on details about Iraq pre-2003, but that wasn't really a major point of yours.

But I do agree with that idea of supporting one's troops, which doesn't also mean supporting the war. For whatever reasons of the government, those soldiers don't deserve a cold shoulder by their fellow citizens at home.

the powers that be, that wanted the war so fricking bad that every single news network was balls deep for the invasion, are way above Bush and Obama. Those people don't get voted in and out, and they stay no matter who wins any elections. If the government doesn't go for the invasion, then they have to trick the gov't.

One of the problems with Blair's testimony is this:

He gives various justifications for the UK's support of and involvement in the invasion.

These may or may not be valid reasons for his decisions. They or may not have been enough to persuade parliament and the people to back him at the time.

But they are not the reasons he gave at the time. At the time, he claimed we wuld not have invaded if there had not been clear evidence of the weapons of mass destruction, and that we were not interested in "regime change".

He informed us that he had clear and definite information (which he could only share with certain people for security reasons).

This was apparently not true, so to say that there "was no deception" is not true.

by morph on Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:10 am

did i win that easily... please someone quick argue against me so i dont think im the expert on this subject..

What you want to tell you. If someon have Ally,that these not mean that he need to give you support for any reason.
Do you think that US needed Military Help from British to crush Iraqy army? mine answer its no.
Do you think that US neded political help from British to crush iraq army? mine answer its yes,but for that they send British Army,in some form of coalition Army,to give some legitimitation to iraq invasion,nothing else. If all country say no against Iraq invasion ,including British,then probably invasion of iraq maybe not hepend, because WMD, will not be found,and people will not lie abouth that,but then again,maybe will find some other causes to start invasion.
US alone its to strong for poor Iraq army.