Tony Blair Pwns Self

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:10 pm

This certainly roffled my waffles. Mr. Blair was facing another round of tough (but repetitive) questioning in the House Of Commons, and beginning to lose his temper when the first speaker sat down ( Michael Howard). Up got Charles Kennedy, to attack Blair over the legality of the Iraqi war. That got him going. Blair started going on about how going to war was a difficult decision, he took it and stood by it, and if he hadn't, Saddam might still be running Iraq. OH NOES!!!! Then up got a backbencher from Mr. Blair's own party who said...  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Originally Said By A Labour Backbencher "You try to justify the illegal war against Iraq to those of us who opposed it, on the grounds that if we had not gone to war, Saddam Hussein and his two sons would still have been in charge. "How then do you explain your statement to this House (of Commons) on February 25th, 2003, when you said:  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Mr. Blair's Words "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntarily disarming through the United Nations. I detest his regime but even now he could save it by complying with the UN's demands." </td></tr></table>  </td></tr></table>  Mr. Blair wasn't quite sure how to answer that <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /> So... let's recap shall we? The Iraqi war has always been about... Oil? Nope. Then... WMD? The intelligence was flawed, and overhyped to sell it to the British public. But we haven't found them! Rats, what's next? Removing a dictator from office! Yeah, that's what it's always been about, freeing the Iraqi people from this 3vil man! Oh wait... *looks up* Yup, Blair made a mess of this one <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> Wonder if that'll have any effect on the General Election next year? Bush might lose his British friend...

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:26 pm

I think the war was justified, although there are quite a few other repressive regimes that need killing. I suspect the motives of those in charge were not so selfless. However, if anyone says the war was for oil, I will be forced to slap them silly, because that Does. Not. Make. Sense.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:41 pm

Certainly, the end result was worth it, but a policy of 'the end justifies the means' can't really be used in politics. Unfortunately the phrase 'justified war' tends to be seized on by some politicians. "Do you think the war was justified?" "Yeah, I guess." "See, I was right, I AM T3H ROXX3R3!" or... "No, I don't think the war was the right way to go about it." "OMG! You don't support getting rid of 3vil dicatorz! J00 SUK!"

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:56 pm

Do the ends justify the means? I think that is an important question. What I think: In this case, the means (war, with a few thousand coalition troops dead) seems fully justified by the ends (Saddam out of power, islamic fundamentalist rebels defeated.) Of course, this assumes that we stay in Iraq until the rebels are all dead or have given up, and manage to keep the government on track towards a representative form of government guaranteeing civil liberty. If any of the preceding is not accomplished, then the war has been a complete waste, and the means are not justified.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am

Just so. Until I see Iraq maintain an autonomous and semi-stable democracy, I cannot go along with the view that the war has been justified, that the end justified the means. It's still far too early to tell.

Phauxe Kitsune · Postby **Phauxe Kitsune** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:19 am

My take on it is that it is good that Saddam is out of power, and it is good that Iraq has Democracy (so long as we are there long enough to make sure it works and finish what we started). However, that wasn't why we went to war. If I recall, Bush said we were going to war because Saddam had ties to bin Laden and had weapons of mass destruction, neither of which were true. He lied to start a war. I would've been a lot more comfortable with it (and probably not excessively outraged) if he had said from the get-go that we were invading Iraq to free its people and remove Saddam from power. So, my biggest issue is that Bush went to war without proper justification. Even though some good came from it, Bush still lied to go to war in the first place and, therefore, it was wrong. On another note, I don't see how the war could've been for oil; it just doesn't add up.

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:09 am

I think that nobody really knows what's going on. Or maybe I'm just desperately hoping I'm not the only one in the dark here. Or maybe the whole thing is a conspiracy that we, teh public, are not allowed to know about.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:30 pm

The war was for economical reasons, every war in history is almost completely or in a very large part because of money; you can sugar coat it with patriotism, oil, honour and defence all you want.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:26 pm

Let us not oversimplify history. The fact that people profitted, or aimed to profit, from most every war in history, that does not mean that everyone involved was involved for love of money. Furthermore, I wonder whose economy this war was supposed to help. Halliburton, perhaps? It certainly had no good effect on the National economies of the US or Iraq. To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, war is a black hole for money.

Ozymandias · Postby **Ozymandias** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:03 pm

Every war was for land. Although this normally means money, civil war is for land (a whole country) too. I think thew time was wrong to go into Iraq. It is true that nothing would've changed if no action was taken, but I don't see why Britain got involved if it was not for financial reasons. People needed to go just that little bit further down the UN route; didn't the war seem rushed to you? If they'd just let the public adjust to the fact that the UN was blocking them and that war was absolutely necessecary, and that if we did not go, then it was worse off for Iraq, rather than trying to scare people into supporting them. Just that little bit further.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:46 pm

It does seem a rather simple approach but it opens up into many varied aspects, and i still think it was like that. Perhaps (and more than likely it definitely was) many who followed their leaders to war did not do it for money but the leaders who dragged them did. And as for Iraq, i'm sure whatever chosen company got good offers, and as for Halliburton, was that really a surprise?

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:50 pm

maybe people are just naturally violent and wanted a war for fun?

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:23 am

What about viking raids? Do they not constitute warfare? They weren't for land, they were for money and adventure. The land argument can be used for most that money cannot, but that does not mean it was the only reason. Did the Northern US only invade the South because they wanted the land back? Did Spartacus' rebellion have anything to do with land or money? He just wanted to take his men home. What of the Islamic Jihad that spread Islamic rule from the Pyrenees to the Hindu Kush? Certainly a great deal of land was conquered, but was that what motivated the armies who created the short-lived empire? Wars are complicated because they involve ideals. There are three ways to control a man-- by appealing to his greed, fear, or ideals. Greed and fear are very simple and easy to explain. Indeed, they have dominated the course of history. But people are capable of morality. The fact that people think they and their deeds count for something is what makes human beings so unpredictable.

Muninn · Postby **Muninn** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:54 pm

Whatever it was, there was some economic gain behind it. But i don't care much, so i'm proven wrong and there was some miraclous war some time where all went for beneficial, moral and completely honest reasons, so be it, i won't loose any sleep over it.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Tony Blair Pwns Self

Who is online